Billy Connoly Blasts “Censored” British Comedy

From the BBC: Billy Connolly claims British comedy is ‘too censored’

Billy Connolly does not believe comedians should be censored Billy Connolly has spoken out against censorship, complaining that comedians who swear on stage are unfairly branded “vulgarian and foul mouthed”. The star, who is currently performing a string of stand-up dates at London’s Hammersmith Apollo, said comedy was not about causing offence to people. “I don’t offend, that’s not my job. My job is to make people laugh,” he said. The 67-year-old added: “There’s a lot of deep and desperate unfairness been going on.” The BBC was recently criticised over several jokes on the comedy news quiz Mock the Week and Jonathan Ross was accused of homophobia after joking, on his Radio 2 show, that parents should put sons who ask for a Hannah Montana MP3 player up for adoption. Misquoted Connolly himself is no stranger to controversy, after he was criticised in 2004 for making a joke about British hostage Kenneth Bigley – prior to his murder in Iraq – on stage. He has always maintained he was misquoted over the content of the joke. Speaking to BBC Radio 5 live from Tuesday’s South Bank Awards, he said: “I think it was (US comedian) George Carlin who said, ‘the job of a comedian is to know where the line is and to step over it’. “We will dictate where that line is and where it should be. “If you swear in a book, you’re some kind of clever guy, if you swear in a poem, oh how dangerous he is, you swear in a song – oh my God, what a groundbreaker! “You swear as a comedian, and you’re a vulgarian and foul mouthed. “When did this happen? Who’s doing the judging?” Billy’s sentiment is worthwhile but he need not worry. It’s just the Daily Mail/Tory/Mediawatch UK crowd who get into a bother about comedians swearing on stage (and on TV). They want to censor British comedy but thankfully they won’t be able too  because everybody likes different kinds of comedy and we will never have a situation where the tastes of the puritanical minority are opposed on the majority. Most people couldn’t give too fucks about comedians swearing and realise that if you don’t like comedians who swear then you don’t go and watch comedians who swear. Simples!

Daily Mail Try To Whip Up “Sachsgate” Mark II

In the month that some right-wing think-tank advocates getting rid of the BBC this is just the kind of thing that the Daily Mail and their Tory friends need.

From The Daily Mail:

BBC in new ‘Sachsgate’: N-Dubz rapper leaves abusive message on Radio 1 listener’s phone

By Ryan Kisiel, Paul Revoir and Simon Cable
15th January 2010

The BBC was last night facing a fresh obscene phone scandal after a Radio 1 listener was subjected to a death threat.

The female listener, Chloe Moody, 22, texted the station to say she did not like a song by urban music act N-Dubz, who were guests on the Chris Moyles Show.

A member of the band retaliated by copying her number and ringing her back, before leaving an abusive voicemail containing several swear words.

Dino ‘Dappy’ Contostavlos, left, with fellow N-Dubz singers Tulisa Contostavlos and Richard ‘Fazer’ Rawson. Dappy has apologised for leaving an abusive message on a Radio 1 listener’s mobile phone

Dappy, who made the call, last night apologised for his actions and claimed he called her because he was ‘angry’.

But Miss Moody described Dappy, whose real name is Dino Contostavlos, as ‘vile’ and ‘a little boy with a silly hat’.

She claims she received two missed calls from a number she did not recognise on Wednesday.

When she texted the number to find out who it was, Miss Moody alleges that Dappy texted back: ”Your gonna die, U sent a very bad message towards Ndubz on The Chris Moyels show yesterday Morning and for that reason u will never be left alone!! If u say sorry I will leave you alone u ****.’

More calls are said to have come from his phone and a text that read: ‘Pick up the phone then u f****** Chicken.’

According to the BBC, Chris Moyles was not aware that Dappy had taken the contact details of listener Chloe during his show

When Miss Moody, who lives in Boston, Lincolnshire, with her three-year-old daughter did pick up the phone he is alleged to have said more abusive insults.

Miss Moody said: ‘It’s terrifying when anybody sends you a death threat, whether it’s real or not. Somebody of a fragile mind and nervous would be worrying what they were going to do.

‘His behaviour is unprofessional and I’m considering going to the police.

‘When you put yourself in the public eye you need to be able to handle criticism. I also feel let down by Radio 1.’

The incident comes just over a year after the Sachsgate scandal in which comedian Russell Brand was forced to resign and Jonathan Ross was suspended for leaving obscene messages on actor Andrew Sachs’s phone during Brand’s Radio 2 show.

N-Dubz, who have had six singles in the top 40, were in Moyles’ studio for his early morning breakfast show on Tuesday when he asked listeners to email or text in their views on their latest single Playing With Fire.

The band read the messages as they appeared on the presenter’s screen but Dappy took exception to Miss Moody’s negative comments and called her after the show.

BBC bosses are now investigating why he was allowed near the computer screen listing listeners’ personal details, and able to break data protection laws by copying it down.

According to the BBC, neither Moyles nor any of his team were aware that Dappy had taken down the phone number.

Her negative review was not read aloud by Moyles or any of his team during the show.

Dappy last night issued a statement, saying: ‘I totally apologise to Chloe.

‘I called her in the heat of the moment when I was angry, but that is no excuse for my behaviour. I’m genuinely sorry. I’d also like to send my sincerest apologies to Radio 1.’

It is not the first time that the BBC radio show has attracted controversy.

Last year Chris Moyles was criticised for making a joke about Auschwitz.

And also in 2008 the presenter, who is paid £650,000 a year, was forced again to apologise for appearing to suggest on his show that Poles make good prostitutes.

He claimed he did not mean to insult Polish women and apologised for ‘unintentional offence’ after dozens of complaints were made to the BBC.

After the breakfast show finished at 10am on Tuesday, N-Dubz went go-karting with Chris Moyles, his team and a competition winner.

The hip-hop band from Camden, North London, have had six singles in the top 40 and played at Radio One’s Big Weekend in Swindon, Wiltshire, in May last year.

A BBC spokesman last night said: ‘We were unaware that the number had been taken from the production team’s console and will take steps to ensure it can’t happen again.’

How can the BBC be held accountable for the actions of this stupid hat wearing idiot?

“A BBC spokesman last night said: ‘We were unaware that the number had been taken from the production team’s console and will take steps to ensure it can’t happen again.’”

Easy soloution. Sack the twat who gave Dappy this woman’s phone number.

But of course the Daily Mail and their Tory readers will try to turn this into yet another bash the BBCathon!

“Those lefty liberal Guardian types who run the BBC allow fouthed mouth rappers to abuse nice middle class girls blah blah blah!”

This story comes at a great time for the Mail and their anti-BBC Tory readers. This month a right-wing think tank advocated doing away with the BBC and the licence fee!

A chance to further their cause by whipping up another scandel akin the “Sachsgate” affair.

Of course it’s obvious this is nothing like what happened with the Ross/Brand/Sachs fiasco. Brand and Ross did their prank call to Sachs live on the air.

N Dubz have some catchy tunes, that Tulissa is gorgeous but Dappy and that other guy are both arrogant numpties!

Dappy obviously has a screw loose but whatever outrage from right-wing middle England can easily be resolved by broadcasters telling him that if does anything like this again he won’t be allowed on air with the band to promote their music.

Interview With Gamers Voice MP Tom Watson

From Now Gamer courtesy of the Melon Farmers:

UK MP Wants Policing Not Censorship

Tom Hopkins 15:39, Monday 4 January 2010

 

Tom Watson, MP for West Bromwich East and gaming advocate has spoken to NowGamer about his Facebook group Gamer’s Voice, and the how the government perception of videogames needs to change…It’s rare to hear a political voice, let alone an MP, speak out on the side of the games industry, so how have you got involved?
TW: Well, I love games and I’m inspired by the world of games that my kids are going to grow up in.
The debate in Westminster is skewed against gamers. They need their voice heard. That’s why I set up Gamers’ Voice.
 
You seem to feel strongly that videogames are being misrepresented in parliament. Why do you think that is?
TW: There’s a toxic mix of tabloid sensationalism and busy MPs who are too busy to plug in a console and enjoy themselves.
 
Are you an advocate of tax breaks and other economic support for British videogame developers?
TW: Yes, though I think more important for the industry is the formation of a UK Games Council along the lines of a UK film council. It will get the industry into the fabric of government and allow much closer strategic collaboration.
 
The gaming audience is getting older and the content of videogames seems to be following this trend by tackling darker and more adult topics, but in your opinion can a game go too far?
TW: It’s about choice. There are games that repulse me. And as a parent, there are games that I won’t let me kids get anywhere near. But as long as people know what the content is like, I don’t have a problem.
 
The interactivity of games is often felt to make the way in which adult content is experienced in them significantly different from when seen in films or on TV. Do you agree with this position?
TW: I’ve never wept or screwed up my eyes in fear at a videogame. I have for plenty of films. The people who make the argument that games are more immersive and therefore dangerous should calm down.
 
Are you concerned that the debate about videogame content is too polarised? Can the two sides be reconciled?
TW: I’m not sure. We created Gamers’ Voice to give a platform to ordinary gamers to explain why video games are part of their cultural lives. MPs, despite their bad press, usually do listen to rational argument.

“I’ve never wept or screwed up my eyes in fear at a videogame. I have for plenty of films”

I think MPs are legitimately concerned about the gory stuff getting into the hands of kids. There’s a role for more public information campaigns to ensure that parents understand the classification system. But I think the industry is aware of this.
 
Do gamers need to engage with the criticism of the industry more maturely than is commonly the case?
TW: Well, on the Gamers’ Voice facebook site the debate is generally very high brow – interspersed with the odd grumpy gamer moaning about Keith Vaz!
 
Do you think people take the ratings system for videogames seriously enough? How can we go about strengthening it?
TW: We’re strengthening the PEGI rating system in the Digital Economy Bill being discussed in Parliament. When this is done, the industry is pledged to run more public information campaigns about what the content warning symbols mean.

This sounds a bit left field but I would personally like a playability rating in addition to the PEGI rating.  I take the view that I can decide what kind of game my 4 year old plays. I just don’t know whether he has the dexterity to handle the complexity of a particular game.
 
How can we as gamers get more involved in these debates and help change the attitudes of our MPs?
TW: Join Gamers Voice.

This from Now Gamer courtesy of the Melon Farmers.

Great stuff!

It would be interesting to maybe interview someone who holds more censoious views about video games, just to show what Tom Watson is up against.

Kieth Vaz would be an obvious choice. But what about Vivienne Pattison?

 

Mediasnoops Review Of The Noughties

Arn’t reviews of the year stupid? And even more stupid are reviews of an entire decade! Yeah some TV exec types go “Yeah let’s trawl through all the shit and embarresingly pathetic stuff that happened and was on TV during the last ten years and get Z-list talking heads to chat shit about it all!”

We’d rather have our ears permanently maskingtaped to headphones pumping out X Factor and Westlife crap!

The noughties has been a shit decade! Just like all the other shitty decades! It started with thousands of people being blown to fuck in airplanes and buildings. Then it carried on with people being blown to fuck in airplanes and buildings.

Oh yeah censorship! Well the National Viewers and Listeners Association renamed themselves as Mediawatch-uk and Mary Whitehouse popped her clogs in 2001.

Someone called John Beyer spent nine years being a rent-a-quote for the Daily Mail and other assorted tabloid press and spending his time lobbying for filthy and dirty viewers of porn to be put in jail for three years!

Then this woman called Vivienne Pattison took over!

Kids have been stabbing and shooting each other for the past decade and politicians, teachers and relegious people all decided that TV, films, video games and something called gangsta rap was to blame!

Kieth Vaz couldn’t come up with any ideas to improve the lives of kids so they don’t go around stabbing and shooting each other so in 2004 he decided that if we ban games like Manhunt everything will be A-ok!

Women’s right didn’t excactly get any further during the last ten years. Women are still behind in the pay stakes and despite reams of legislation being brough in they are still treated like dirt by their employers.

But feminists decided that all that wasen’t much of a problem and that instead the real threat to all of womankind were  lads mags, where blondes  get paid to get their tits out!

Rape and domestic abuse remain a danger to women even in today’s enlightened times. 

But rape and domestic violence campaigners have all come to the conclusion that locking up men who rape and beat up women for longer than a few months won’t stop rape and domestic violence.

Instead magazines which feature women with their tits out should be banned and the problem will stop!

Over the past ten years we have seen the threats of terrorism, war and poverty make the world a more violent and unjust place.

But governments still believe that we just need some more laws and something to ban and we will all be alright.

The noughties has truley been the decade of BAN IT NOW! The decade where the ONLY soloutions governments have  to social problems is to find something to blame and then try and ban it!

Obsesity is the fault of junk food adverts before 9pm! BAN IT NOW!

Child violence is the fault of violent video games! BAN IT NOW!

Rape of women in the fault of lads mags! BAN IT NOW!

As we enter the new decade don’t expect governments to come up with any real soloutions. It’s too hard! And it costs too much!

So come this time in the year 2019 we will be looking back at another shit decade and wondering what the point of it all is!

Happy new year!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

God Hates Lady Gaga

Mediasnoops has been a bit quiet over the Christmas period but we are back on the look out for some last minute festive nutterdom. And hark those wackjobs from the Westboro Baptist Church deliver us with such pricless nutterdom!

From the Melon Farmers:

Westboro Baptists Go GaGa…

Nutters target Lady GaGa for their homophobic protests

Based on article from gather.com
 
A new flier distributed by the Westboro Baptist Church invites its supporters to protest gay icon and equality advocate Lady Gaga, in St. Louis Missouri, the first week on January.

According to the Bible homosexuality is an abomination and she has to shut her filthy mouth and stop promoting it, says attorney and Westboro member Shirley Phelps-Roper, reports Radar Online.

Surreal statements from the event listing on Westboro Baptist’s web calendar include:

Lady Gaga has no qualms about displaying her filth for all the world to see, using the platform given to her by God to teach rebellion against Him. She loudly and proudly proclaims her fornication and sexual relations with women, saying that she wants to free and liberate her young fans. Gag! She glories in her shame, encourages everyone she can get her hands on to do the same….Like the many whores who came before her, Lady of the night Gaga thinks she can change God by teaching you to hate Him and liberating you from His standards. ….

And to all those that would follow the example of this treacherous tart…. this warning from God: ….I, will chastise you seven times for your sins. And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat. And I will destroy your high places, and cut down your images, and cast your carcases upon the carcases of your idols, and my soul shall abhor you. Lev. 26:27-30. Catch that? Because you won’t obey, God will cause you to eat your children, He’ll cast your dead bodies on those of your idols, and He’ll abhor you. Obeying God is your only recourse at this hour. But because you heed the words of stupid rebels like Lady Gaga INSTEAD of the God who created you, this generation is doomed.

Gaga has been an avid supporter of gay rights, famously appearing at the Marriage Equality March in Washington, D.C. in October.
Hilarious! Merry Christmas!

Hollyoakes Drop “Jamie Bulger” Plot After Mum Complains

The producers of Hollyoakes knew that Jamie Bulger’s Mum would hear about this storyline.

Chances are they probably told her about themselves as they knew she would object and then they could drop the plot and then make a big song and dance about it to the tabloid press to show how “sensitive” and considerate of a grieving mother’s feelings they apparently are.

From the Daily Mail:

Channel 4 drops controversial Hollyoaks storyline that bore similarities to Jamie Bulger killing

By Ben Todd
15th December 2009

Channel 4 has been forced to scrap a controversial storyline that drew parallels with the infamous Jamie Bulger killing, following complaints from the tragic youngster’s mother.

Denise Fergus, whose son was killed in 1993 by two 10-year-old boys, complained to TV executives when she learnt the channel’s teenage soap opera Hollyoaks was planning a storyline that bore hallmarks linking it to the aftermath of the youngster’s death.

The series was due to feature scenes from today in which two characters were shown to be living under false names. It was to have emerged that they had been convicted of a child-on-child murder when they were younger.

Controversial: A Hollyoaks storyline featuring actresses Melissa Walton (left) and Amber Hodgkiss as a pair of pre-teen killers living under new
identities has been scrapped

In chilling echoes of the James Bulger case, two characters, – Loretta Jones (Melissa Walton) and her friend Chrissy (Amber Hodgkiss)- would admit they had killed a girl when they were aged 12.

Despite differences in the ages and sexes, the script was seen as a thinly-veiled reference to the aftermath of the abduction and murder of Jamie Bulger  by Robert Thompson and Jon Venables, that caused national revulsion.

When Mrs Fergus last month become aware of the plans, she immediately contacted Lime Pictures Ltd, the TV production company who make the series.

Relieved: Denise Fergus, pictured next to a portrait of her murdered son James Bulger, is thankful the soap’s bosses have respected her wishes

As a result, Mrs Fergus attended a private screening of four planned episodes of the show with her husband Stuart Fergus at the TV company’s studios in Liverpool.

After the screening, she met the show’s executive producer Tony Wood and Lime Pictures Managing Director Sean Marley.

Mrs Fergus explained to them the storyline would cause her real upset if it were to be broadcast because she felt some scenes carried particular similarities to events following the murder of her son.

After the meeting, Mr Wood and Mr Marley said that, in the circumstances, the storyline would not be broadcast.

As a result, all of the plot has now been scrapped and the character of Chrissy, who was never given a surname, will now never be seen.

That has led to frantic last-minute editing out of the scenes by TV bosses. That was still going on just hours before tonight’s episode.

Denise Fergus said: ‘It was constructive meeting and I accept what they told me – that there was never any intention on the part of Hollyoaks to copy or mirror events surrounding James’ death.

‘Having said that, there was no doubt in my mind that the plot carried some of the hallmarks of what happened to that evil pair after they were convicted of murdering James.

‘The part that I found most disturbing was that there were scenes in which two child killers were seen to be giving each other sympathy.

‘The producers said that in the long-run, the story would not have been favourable to the killers and in the future they would be shown to suffer the consequences from their crime.

‘But I was shocked to see two people on screen, who were immediately identified as ‘Thompson and Venables’ in my mind, talking about how they had murdered another child.

‘Played by glamorous young actresses they were the centre of attention and looking to each other for support.

Young killers: Robert Thompson (left) and Jon Venables served eight years in jail for the 1993 killing of Liverpool toddlerJames Bulger

‘It was turning the killers into celebrities and to me that was completely unacceptable. I made it clear that I did not want those scenes broadcast and I’m pleased to say they clearly understood my feelings and agreed to scrap them.

‘I’m very relieved and grateful that they are respecting my wishes.

‘I also appreciate it will involve an amount of work to re-edit these future episodes and would like to thank them publicly for doing this.

‘It is clear that they never intended to cause upset to me and decided to act immediately when I told them how strongly I felt.”

A Lime Pictures spokesman said: ‘Hollyoaks has a very good track record of tackling difficult subject matter for a younger audience and the producers take seriously their duty to deal with sensitive issues in an appropriate way.

‘This particular storyline was not based on any real-life case and was not intended to recreate actual events. However after conversations with Denise Fergus we have agreed to amend certain aspects of the storyline.’

Mother-of-three Denise added that she has accepted an invitation to work with the makers of Hollyoaks to develop a future storyline about issues affecting young people.

The question is whether someone’s grief gives them the moral authority to tell TV programme makers and broadcasters what they can and cannot show.

Denise Ferges was angry that the plotline and scenes had similarities with the events surrounding the two boys that murdered her son but after the producers agreed to drop the storyline and re-edit the programme she is now full of praise for them.

All of which will give Hollyoakes lots of positive publicity!

Perahps this shows how censoring their own programmes can make programme makers and broadcasters look good, at least in the eyes of the reactionary tabloid media.

This reminds us of when Eastenders and Corronation Street both made grand annoucements that they were dropping child abduction storylines when the Madeline McCann kidnapping was in the news. Both were trying to show how sensitive they can be!

Mediawatch UK Want Tougher iPlayer Restrictions

What Mediawatch UK want, in effect is for adult content on broadcasters’ iPlayer services banned at the initial point of access and those who wish to view such content made to apply to do so.

From The Express:

Broadcasters challenged over children’s access to sex and violence

Campaigners are demanding stricter controls on broadcasters’ websites which allow children to watch adult programmes containing sex, violence and bad language.

By Ian Johnston
Published: 8:25AM GMT 13 Dec 2009

Explicit programmes such as True Blood can be watched online at any time of day Photo: Channel 4

Programmes with sexual themes such as The Graham Norton Show can be watched online at any time of day Photo: EPA

Mediawatch UK, the pressure group, will highlight the lack of effective parental controls on BBC iPlayer, Channel 4’s 4oD and other online services.

The group points to programmes available to watch via the internet which it claims are unsuitable for children, including the violent and sexually-explicit vampire drama True Blood and another drama series, Misfits, both on Channel 4; the BBC’s Spooks and The Graham Norton Show; and ITV’s American drama Gossip Girl.

Although the shows are only broadcast on television after the 9pm watershed, they can be watched online at any time of day.

The main broadcasters’ websites allow parents to set up a password which is need to watch adult content. However, Mediawatch says this ‘opt-out’ system should be replaced with one where people have to actively opt in to see adult content, as the majority of parents never view the websites.

Vivienne Pattison, the new director of Mediawatch UK – founded by Mary Whitehouse as the National Viewers’ and Listeners Association – said this would be a simple change which would ensure children are properly protected.

True Blood is described on 4oD as “a very adult drama, with very strong language, strong sexual scenes and depictions of violence and drug use, all from the start”. Misfits is said to contain “strong language, violence and scenes of a sexual nature”.

Both programmes are featured on the site’s front page in the “Hot on 4oD” section. Fans include Jonathan Ross, the BBC presenter, and his children, aged 18, 15 and 12. Ross wrote on the Twitter website last week: “We are still all loving Misfits on E4! My kids LOVE Nathan [one of the characters], rather worryingly.”

The BBC iPlayer website states that The Graham Norton Show, which contains strong language, “may be unsuitable for young audiences”.

In shops, DVDs of Gossip Girl and Spooks cannot be sold to under-15s.

Miss Pattison accused broadcasters of paying “lip-service” to the need to protect children. She said: “The technology has moved ahead of the regulation and that’s the problem.

“Ofcom’s most recent research found that fewer than a third of parents use parental controls or are confident about how to use them. And often it’s children of parents who cannot or will not do something about it who are the ones you are most concerned about.”

Standard practice on television websites is to include warnings about content, ask viewers to click a box saying they are over 16 or 18, and allow parents to set up a password which must be used to see adult programmes. The process takes seconds.

Miss Pattison said programmes containing sex and violence should be restricted automatically, with all viewers having to set up a password to access them.

“This is a really obvious one, it would be simple to do and we hope to campaign on it big next year,” she said.

Mediawatch UK has also questioned the legality of online television services in the light of a new law which comes into force this week.

The Audiovisual Media Services (AVMS) Regulations 2009, which take effect on December 19, require that under-18s should not be able to “normally see or hear” material which “might seriously impair [their] physical, mental or moral development”.

Miss Pattison said: “It very clearly says children should be protected from undesirable material, which currently I do not think they are.”

Ofcom is preparing to announce what practical changes broadcasters will need to make to comply with the new rules, but a source at the regulator said the legislation was unlikely “to make much difference to the main players”.

Broadcasters are resistant to the idea of imposing an initial block on adult programmes, saying it would represent a “commercial barrier” and would be a “nanny-state” measure.

Asked to comment on the proposal for an opt-out system, Channel 4 said: “Our approach is to make our content available with appropriate and informative text guidance, so parents can set controls for their household as they see fit.

“It’s important to strike a balance between the positive benefits of the online world and putting in place guidance and controls to ensure that everyone and young people in particular, can make the most of it.”

The BBC said the corporation “takes its responsibility to enable parents or guardians to protect younger viewers from unsuitable BBC content on its websites very seriously and already provides a number of tools to do this”.

“Setting up these systems is optional but they can be easily activated at any time,”the corporation added.

One industry insider described attempts to restrict access to adult content on the internet as “trying to push water uphill”, while another pointed out that children could “just type ’sex’ into Google” if they wanted to.

It’s noticeable that Pattison’s approach to protecting children from adult material seems different to that of her predeccesor, at least when it comes to internet content.

She seems to have little problem with such material being avaliable as long as it’s heavily restricted so that children cannot get access to it, whereas Beyer seemed to want such material banned completly so that nobody, not even adults could view it.

We are interested in seeing how she approaches this issue when it comes to other media such as films and video games.

However the fact she wants such adult material on broadcasters’ websites initially blocked from the point of access shows she isn’t really that less censorious than Beyer was!

But at least she isn’t saying “just ban it!”  like he used to!

Pattison Jumps On Celebrity Swearing Bandwagon

Mediasnoops has been off with a bad cold for a few days! Nice to see that Pattison is getting more like Beyer every day.

Celebrities swearing on daytime TV! A bandwagon Beyer could never resist jumping on!

From the Daily Mail:

Stop daytime swearing, TV bosses urged after two outbursts on talk shows

By Paul Revoir
Last updated at 8:56 AM on 10th December 2009

Broadcasters are facing calls to clamp down on pre-watershed swearing after two cases in a matter of hours. 

Campaigners say too many incidents of bad language and inappropriate material are capable of being seen by children before the 9pm cut-off. 

On Tuesday, art critic Brian Sewell, a guest on The Alan Titchmarsh Show, which starts at 3pm, said of Victoria Beckham: ‘She is just a common little bitch.’

Alan Titchmarsh apologised to viewers after art critic Brian Sewell swore on his talk show, which airs at 3pm

A few hours later during The One Show, which starts at 7pm, actress Bette Midler blurted out the word ‘b*****ks’ as she was being interviewed. 

Vivienne Pattison, director of pressure group Mediawatch UK, said: ‘We know that audiences do not like this kind of language.

‘It should be made clearer to guests that swearing is not allowed.’

Hollywood star Midler was talking on the BBC show about how happy she was to be visiting the UK. She said: ‘This is a kind of fabulous place and I am always happy to come.’

She then added: ‘Oh b*******s’.

There was no immediate apology from presenters Adrian Chiles and Christine Bleakley. Viewers claimed there was only a ‘very backhanded’ telling off later in the show. 

Bette Midler blurted out ‘b*****ks while being interviewed on The One Show

Alan Titchmarsh apologised on his ITV afternoon show for Mr Sewell’s comments shortly after they were made.

Sewell had told the gardening expert: ‘I have great respect for David Beckham but his wife is ghastly’ before launching into the attack.

Titchmarsh’s show has come under fire before over claims of unsuitable content.

Last year he was accused of reaching an all-time low after he searched for a model’s erogenous zones.

Others also questioned the appropriateness of scenes on Loose Women last year which saw presenter Carol McGiffin do a striptease on the lunchtime show.

Critics yesterday called on TV producers to toughen up guidelines to guests following a string of incidents on live talk shows.

They want programme-makers to make it clearer to talk show guests that swearing is unacceptable for daytime TV audiences.

Ms Pattison added: ‘Obviously in live TV things happen and we know how difficult that is and the presenter has to get out of that very quickly. But I am concerned that it is still happening.

‘I certainly think that it should be made clearer to guests that swearing is not allowed. It is quite extraordinary that they are not allowed to swear on these shows in the States and yet they come over here and do it. It is down to the editors on live TV show to let their guests know that this is the case.’

Conservative MP, Philip Davies, who sits on the culture, media and sport select committee, also expressed concerns about the incidents.

He said: ‘I completely understand the anger of viewers, particularly if they are watching something with their children. It is totally unacceptable.

‘Parents will be rightly angry to be subjected to this when we do have watershed. Maybe the broadcasters can do more.’

Last year Joan Rivers was kicked off ITV’s daytime talkshow Loose Women after she swore live on air and prompted 50 complaints. She stunned the audience by describing actor Russell Crowe as a ‘f****** s****.

As usual with these things what’s unclear is how many complaints there were, if there were any at all and whether this is just another case of the Daily Mail and a handful of it’s readers picking up on something and then running to Mediawatch UK for a few outraged quotes from their director.

Mediasnoops does not condone pre-watershed swearing but thinks this is just another example of the Daily Mail, Mediawatch UK and their handful of Tory friends making a big deal out of fuck all!

A lot parents probably didn’t even notice the swearing in these shows (notice the abscence of any quotes from outraged parents) and even if kids heard it they won’t be morally destroyed!

Cranky Camilla Crockes About “Terrifying” Music Videos

The Royal Family live in an unearned and unjustified position of privlage and power. The last thing we need is for any of them to start dictating what can and cannot be shown and seen in music videos or anything else.

From the Daily Mail:

Camilla condemns Beyoncé’s ‘terrifying’ gangster rap videos for glorifying sex and violence

By Rebecca English

Concerned Camilla: The Duchess of Cornwall listens to the story of a client at the Rape and Sexual Abuse Support Centre in London last night

The Duchess of Cornwall yesterday spoke for the first time about the way youngsters are sexualised by explicit rap videos.

Camilla was taking part in a discussion with victims of sexual violence during a visit to a rape crisis centre when the topic turned to how music videos affect teenagers today.

She told an audience of women that children thought they could get away with things because teachers failed to punish them.

Referring to the images children are exposed to, the Duchess said: ‘A lot of those videos are terrifying.

‘I am sure they trigger a response in some of the young people. I can never understand how they can get away with making those things.’

The Duchess has until now avoided speaking in public on social issues.

Her stance has been in marked contrast to Charles’ first wife, Diana, Princess of Wales, who was renowned for the way in which she tackled controversial issues.

Yesterday the Duchess made clear her concern that youngsters are already becoming immune to such images of sex and violence.

She said schools needed to become involved in teaching both male and female schoolchildren ‘the value of respect for each other’.

During the discussions, the subject turned to a controversial video by pop singer Beyonce, who is particularly popular with young girls.

Poor example: The Duchess of Cornwall says music videos like Beyonce’s Video Phone, which see the singer wearing a series of revealing outfits, are too explicit

In the promotion for the single Video Phone, which also features the outlandish singer Lady Gaga,

Beyonce provocatively dances in a series of increasingly skimpy outfits and holds a toy gun to the head of a bare-chested man who is hooded. 

‘It has happened too quickly, values have changed so much,’ the Duchess said.

‘I suppose it’s peer pressure, that’s the problem. You don’t want to look the odd one out.

The video features Beyonce and Lady GaGa posing with toy guns and posing in revealing white corsets posing with hooded men

‘But it takes a strong person to show that they don’t approve, especially at that age. It’s a breakdownof discipline. There doesn’t seem to be any punishment for such behaviour. The teachers are too kind.’

The Duchess was touring the Rape and Sexual Abuse Support Centre in Croydon, South London.

She said she was ‘incredibly moved’ by what she saw and was ‘astonished’ that the centre was the only of its kind in London, despite one in four women experiencing sexual violence in their lifetime.

The centre, which opened in 1985, offers a range of services including counselling and advocacy for women and girls who have been raped or experienced another form of sexual violence including abuse, incest, forced marriage and so-called honour based crime.

It was her first visit to such a frontline establishment and she was clearly moved by the stories she heard from survivors.

One woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, told the Duchess how it had taken her almost 30 years to seek help after being raped at the age of just 17 by a knife-wielding gang. ‘I felt it was my fault, that I had brought it on myself through my own naivety,’ she said.

Another told her that she had been close to suicide after being raped by a stranger while walking home from work. ‘I honestly don’t believe I would be here today if it wasn’t for the centre,’ she said. ‘The attack was my shameful secret that I couldn’t talk about to anyone.’

The Duchess replied: ‘It is so sad that you didn’t feel that there was anyone you could talk to at the time. It makes me realise how badly we need more centres like this. It is an inspirational place – you are all inspirational women.’

The Duchess was particularly stunned to learn that despite an astonishing one in four women experiencing sexual violence during their lifetime, according to government figure, the RASAC is the only organisation of its kind in the capital.

Its helpline and counselling services currently help 4,000 desperate women a year whose ages range from just 14 to 79, but the centre is badly in need of further funding.

After her hour-long visit, the Duchess told the Daily Mail: ‘I have been incredibly moved by what I have seen. I have never been to something like this before but as soon as they contacted me to ask whether I wanted to learn more about their work, I knew it was something I wanted to get involved with.

‘I find it astonishing that it is the only one of it’s kind in London. If you think of the number of women in London that might need help, we need more centres like this.

‘We also need to find ways to get the centre’s message out there. Almost all of the women I met told me how difficult it was to find out about support services on offer and how many of them found the RASASC by chance. That can’t be right.’

Yvonne Traynor, the centre’s chief executive, said; ‘Next year is our 25th anniversary and just two years ago our funding was so dire that we were unsure whether we could actually carry on.

‘I have been really impressed by the Duchess of Cornwall’s enthusiasm and empathy for what we do. She seemed really keen to go out there and spread the word on our behalf.’

By expressing her views about music videos “glorifying” sex and violence during a talk at a rape crises centre Camilla Parker Bowles is more or less saying that such videos are to blame for rape and sexual abuse.

“I am sure they trigger a response in some of the young people. “

Yeah they turn them all into sex crazed rapists! Of course!

“I can never understand how they can get away with making those things.”

Which presuambly means Camilla thinks such videos should be banned!

Which will lead to more calls for censorship from the right-wing!

“Beyonce provocatively dances in a series of increasingly skimpy outfits and holds a toy gun to the head of a bare-chested man who is hooded. ”

And how will this lead to young girls being raped and abused? Oh of course all depictions sex causes rape!

“It has happened too quickly, values have changed so much”.

Yeah let’s go back to the days when sex was seen as something that is dirty and immoral and when it was never talked about other than to tell people that they shouldn’t be doing it.

Those good old fashioned values will stop young girls being sexually abused won’t they?

Bollox!

Rape and sexual abuse of women is caused by a system which causes great inequalities between women and men and which widens the gap between rich and poor. A system which the likes of Camilla Parker Bowles would like to preserve because they detract attention away from it by blaming music videos for rape!

Cranky Clergy Cry Over New Res Evil Game

Oh get a life!

  

From MCV courtesy of Melon Farmers:

 

Tuesday, 24th November 2009 at 1:14 pm

 

Capcom responds to clergy criticism

by Ben Parfitt

Men of the cloth accuse Resident Evil: The Darkside Chronicles of promoting the occult

Publisher Capcom has defended Resident Evil: The Darkside Chronicles from accusations that it glamorises violence and promotes the occult.

Bishop Bryant of Jarrow, Archdeacon Brian Smith and Rt Rev John Goddard have all accused the game of promoting such interests amongst the UK’s youth, with the latter stating: “If we dabble in this area we open ourselves to influences and put ourselves at risk. I would regard any encouragement for children to be drawn into this behaviour with extreme horror.”

Capcom spokesperson Leo Tan, however, is less convinced about the proposed risk: “This is scaremongering and typical religious hysteria. You cannot blame society’s ills on video games. It’s just absurd.

“Most games (and movies) like Resident Evil show characters fighting evil not supporting it. Unfortunately the clergy is showing a lack of understanding of the video games industry and is too quick to splash the holy water and lump video games players into stereotypical boxes.



“Video games are entertainment and like horror movies or other scary films they are covered by a ratings system. Resident Evil for example is a 15 and not suitable for anyone under that age. Parents have to be trusted to adhere to these age restrictions and use common sense.”

Capcom’s response to these nutters is good enough!