NZ nutters winge as TV station won’t ban Californication

You may well remember a while back some Australian Christian nutters trying to get Californication taken off the TV there.
Well some nutters in New Zealand have been at it also.

From the Melon Farmers:

Update:  Nutters Label Censors as Morally Bankrupt…
  
New Zealand TV censor clears Californication
Based on an article from New Zealand Herald
 
Nutters have called the New Zealand Broadcasting Standards Authority “morally bankrupt” after it failed to uphold complaints about TV3 drama Californication.

Family First New Zealand laid one of five complaints with the authority which alleged the first episode broadcast in November breached standards of good taste and decency.

Complaints related to a dream sequence where a nun performed oral sex on lead character Hank Moody, constant strong language, teenage drug use and sex scenes.

National director Bob McCoskrie argued that broadcasters are consistently pushing the boundaries of what is normal and acceptable, glorifying and normalising drug and alcohol abuse, pornography, offensive language, violence and degrading treatment of women.

But in a decision released today the BSA said its decision not to uphold the complaint was based on factors such as the programme being preceded by a verbal and written warning, the Adults Only rating, a 9.30pm broadcast time, audience expectations as a result of prior publicity and the title which indicated it was likely to contain “challenging content.”
NZ family groups continue the tradition of thinking that being for the family means trying to get everything you don’t like banned.

Furore over Dutch MP’s anti-Islam film

Geert Wilder’s is an ultra right-wing Dutch MP who seems like a typical odious right-wing nasty piece of work. However the question is should his film be banned? We have doubts.

From the BBC:

UN chief condemns anti-Islam film 
 
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has strongly condemned a controversial film on Islam made by a Dutch politician, calling it “offensively anti-Islamic”.

Several Muslim countries have also condemned the film, a 15-minute polemic by the far-right MP Geert Wilder, which was posted online on Thursday.

Pakistan, Indonesia, Iran and Bangladesh were among those to protest.

The film sets verses from the Koran against a background of violent images from terror attacks.

“I condemn, in the strongest terms, the airing of Geert Wilders’ offensively anti-Islamic film,” Mr Ban said in a statement.

“The right of free expression is not at stake here,” he added. “Freedom must always be accompanied by social responsibility.”

The EU’s Slovenian presidency said the film served no purpose other than “inflaming hatred”.

‘Defamatory’

In Pakistan there were small protests in several places on Friday against the film, while the government summoned the Dutch ambassador in Islamabad to lodge a protest.

The country’s foreign ministry said the film was defamatory and “deeply offended” Muslim sentiments.

Pakistan said it told the Dutch ambassador that it was incumbent on the Netherlands to prosecute Mr Wilders for defamation and deliberately hurting Muslim sentiments, the official Associated Press of Pakistan news agency reported.

The world’s most populous Muslim nation, Indonesia, also condemned the film, saying it was “misleading and full of racism”.

The foreign ministry in Bangladesh issued a statement calling the film “unwarranted” and “mindless”.

Iran said it was blasphemous, anti-Islamic and heinous – a sign it said of deep hatred felt by Westerners towards Muslims.

In the Netherlands, Mr Wilders has said he is happy with what he sees as the relatively positive domestic reaction to his film.

But the Dutch prime minister said the film wrongly equated Islam with violence.

“We reject this interpretation,” Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende said shortly before its publication.

“The vast majority of Muslims reject extremism and violence and in fact the victims are often also Muslims.”
“UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has strongly condemned a controversial film on Islam made by a Dutch politician, calling it “offensively anti-Islamic”.”

Maybe the film is “offensively anti-Islamic”. But should a film be censored because it is anti to a particular religion? Life Of Brian was banned in some parts of this country and still is in some parts of America because it was seen as “offensively anti-Christian”.
The difference here though is the outrage here isn’t just seen as being offensive towards people who practice a particular religion but as “oppresion” and “racism” towards people who practice a particular religion.

“The right of free expression is not at stake here,” he added. “Freedom must always be accompanied by social responsibility.”

This comes from the view going around at the moment that Geert Wilder’s film will lead to more violent racist attacks against Muslims both in Holland and other parts of Europe. The general view is that non Muslims cannot be trusted to watch this film without wanting to go and beat the shit out of the first Muslim they see afterwards. This view is generally pushed by left-wing anti-racism groups who see criticism of Islam as “racism” against Muslims.

Many left-wing groups have condemed the film for offending Muslims whilst they wouldn’t condem something like Jerry Springer The Opera for offending Christians (not that they should of course). But this is because offence towards Muslim’s beliefs is seen in a different context. It’s seen as an act of oppresion because Muslims and the Islam religion a minority.

“The film sets verses from the Koran against a background of violent images from terror attacks.”

Geert Wilder clearly believes Islam is a violent religion. That is a prejudiced view. But it is a view that should be challenged and not one that should just be banned. Many believe that by banning prejudiced views they will just dissapear. Mediasnoops belives that’s wrong and only by challenging such views will they be expossed as wrong.
 
“Pakistan said it told the Dutch ambassador that it was incumbent on the Netherlands to prosecute Mr Wilders for defamation and deliberately hurting Muslim sentiments, the official Associated Press of Pakistan news agency reported.”

The issue here is whether the film consitutes hatred against Muslims as a race and whether it will lead to violent attacks on Muslims in Holland. But the fact that this film may hurt Muslim sentiments is a serperate one and hurting someone’s religious sentiments isn’t reason to prosecute someone. Christian sentiments were hurt by Jerry Springer: The Opera but that was no reason to prosecute the people who made it.
There is a seperate outrage over people’s beliefs being offended. But just because a film offends someone’s beliefs doesn’t mean it should be banned. And if Muslims are offended by it they don’t need to see it.

“The world’s most populous Muslim nation, Indonesia, also condemned the film, saying it was “misleading and full of racism”.”

Maybe so. But shouldn’t people be given the freedom to see it and make up their own minds? And we haven’t heard much argument against what is misleading in the film (that Islam is an evil and violent religion…misleading yes) just calls to ban it because it’s misleading.

“Iran said it was blasphemous, anti-Islamic and heinous – a sign it said of deep hatred felt by Westerners towards Muslims.”

Blasphemous? Again a serperate issue. The debate is about whether the film is hatred against Muslims and could lead to attacks on Muslims. Blasphemy is a serpreate one. And just because something is blasphemous doesn’t mean it should be banned. Holland doesn’t have blasphemy laws. Why should they make some especially for this film?
A sign of deep hatred felt by Westerners towards Muslims? Where is the evidence to support such a sweeping statement? And isn’t this a hatred of Westerners? Suggesting we are all a bunch of racist Muslim haters.

A lot of anti-racism campaigners in Holland have protested and campaigned against the film arguing that is hatred towards Muslims and could lead to attacks on Muslims. This is an issue that should be debated but it seems much of the outrage from the UN, Pakistan, Iran and other Muslim nations is about the offence it could cause to the beliefs of Muslims. In Mediasnoops view people should be protected from hatred and racism but there beliefs should not be protected from offence because they are just beliefs.
The film itself argues Islam is a violent religion. This is wrong but we wonder if the time spent by campaigners against the film trying to ban it could be better spent arguing against and discrediting the overtly paranoid and xenophobic views of Geert Wilder.
Wilder seems a lot like the paranoid nitwits of Christian Voice, constanly banging on about how Islam is trying to “destroy” our way of life and our traditions and values blah blah. Mediasnoops believes in making fun of such nonscence in order to descredit it rather than just banning it and hoping such nitwits will go away.

Byron review recomends age ratings and jail for under age retailers

We say this is about right as it will balance protecting children from unsuitable video games for their age and balancing adult gamers freedom of choice over what games they play.

 From Mediawatch UK: 

Computer Games to be Given Tough New Cinema-Style Age Ratings
Shopkeepers who sell games to underage children face prison
Computer games will be given tough new cinema-style age ratings under proposals to protect children from violent material.  A Government-commissioned report for Gordon Brown says video games can harm the development of children’s beliefs and value systems – and desensitise them to violence. 

It will say that shopkeepers who sell games to children aged younger than the age on the box should face a £5,000 fine or a prison term of up to six months. 

Dr Tanya Byron, a clinical psychologist who wrote the report, urges parents not to let children play video games alone in their bedrooms. They should instead play their games in the living room or kitchen so they can be better monitored.  She said parents should also be aware of the dangers of the internet. 

“Parents are afraid to let their children out,” she said. “So they keep them at home, but allow them to take risks online.”  At present, only about 10 per cent – those featuring ‘gross’ violence or offensive sexual images – are covered by an age classification system overseen by the British Board of Film Classification. 

Other games come under a separate, entirely voluntary European-wide scheme, meaning that less than three per cent of games carry an ‘18′ certificate.  Dr Byron’s review calls for all games involving weaponry and combat being given an age certificate.  Shopkeepers should be handed a hefty fine or a prison sentence of up to six months if they sell such games to underage children.  She said the current system was too confusing and not tough enough.  

Prime Minister Gordon Brown is likely to take Dr Byron’s recommendations seriously.  He is known to share the concern of MPs from all parties who want controls on increasingly violent and sexual material amid concerns that they could trigger attacks by impressionable teenagers and adults.  However, many children get round age classifications by ordering games over the internet, where they often have to tick a box stating they are over 18. 

Launching her report today alongside Schools Secretary Ed Balls and Culture Secretary Andy Burnham in London, the report will also recommend a massive education campaign to warn parents, teachers and childcarers of the risks of games and the internet for children.
Daily Mail 27/3/2008

Oddly enough Mediawatch UK have WELCOMED the proposals by Byron. This is most shocking considering that Mediawatch UK believes that age ratings and sanctions against retailers arn’t enough to protect children from unsuitable video games and believe that only by banning such games completly can children be protected. Here’s John Beyer:

mediawatch-uk Welcomes Byron’s Proposals
Speaking today, 27/3/2008, John Beyer director of mediawatch-uk said: “Firstly, we welcome the fact that the Prime Minister set up the review at all which we believe indicates that violence and pornography it is a matter to be taken seriously; 

Secondly, we welcome proposals for a uniform system of rating games and the requirement that all games involving weaponry and combat are certified; 

Thirdly, we welcome the tough new sanctions proposed against retailers who disregard the age classifications on games.  This is a problem identified in the BBC1 TV progrmame The One Show in September 2007 when nine out of ten retailers sold 18-rated games to a 14-year-old girl;

Fourthly, we welcome the proposals to raise awareness of game and internet content among parents and guardians and the proposals to improve information on blocking inappropriate website content. 

Fifthly, we welcome the important proposal to establish a UK Council on Child Internet Safety and the recommended objectives.  This could provide a forum where any aggrieved person could seek relief. 

Finally, we welcome the criticism of some social network sites and the proposals for improved management and oversight of them.” 

In conclusion Mr Beyer said: “We cannot help but wonder how these important proposals will work out in practice and how quickly any new legislation needed can be enacted.  The critical thing will be the Government’s response to Dr Byron’s Review and how long it takes to implement the proposals.  Their effectiveness must be monitored carefully and we will do our best to highlight the successes and any failings. 

Does this mean Beyer and Mediawatch UK believe that rating video games is more effective than banning them? Why the sudden approval of what they previously would have seen as lax regulation and as “caving in” to the whims of the entertainments industry? This is most confusing. Maybe it’s a ploy to throw their critics off guard. Hmm.

Anyway. The Daily Mail has covered the report in the only way it knows by using it to whip up more scaremongering hysteria about violent video games.

Here’s a link to an article in which TV presenter and Mum of 4 (giving this a WON’T SOMEBODY SAVE CHILDREN FROM THIS EVIL CORRUPTING FILTH spin) Ann Diamond plays some very violent video games and gives her shocked and disgusted verdict on them:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=547008&in_page_id=1770

Of Resident Evil 4 Ms Diamond says ”This game shouldn’t be allowed to be sold, even to adults. It wallows in violence for violence’s sake.”

Typical ill informed bullshit following the Daily Mail’s style and sums up that the Daily Mail obviously believes that violent games should be banned completly and not just given tougher age ratings.

Mediasnoops welcomes the Byron report and believes that by giving parents more information and guidance on what is in some video games it will protect children from games which are unsuitable for their age whilst protecting the freedom of adult gamers to choose their video games for themselves.

Thought it’s clear that self appointed moral guardians like Ann Diamond and the Daily Mail believe parents can’t be trusted to do that themselves and need an all powerful regulator to do that for them. 

NUT Steve Sinnot blames Buzzcocks show for school bullying

Been away for a while with the flu. Back now.

Steve Sinnnot seems to have become the self appointed voice of blame for the National Union Of Teachers. Once again the NUT show how they spend more time looking for convinient scapegoats to blame for problems in their schools rather than trying to find soloutions to those problems.
We have kids leaving school not knowing how to read and write but we have teacher’s union leaders like Steve Sinnot worrying about silly TV shows.

From the Daily Mail:

Battle of insults on TV’s Buzzcocks ‘is fuelling playground bullying’

TV quiz shows featuring personal attacks on celebrities fuel school bullying, it was claimed yesterday.

Steve Sinnott, of the National Union of Teachers, said youngsters copied panel show guests who were prone to cruel, offensive or sexist language.

He told the union’s conference that celebrities and producers of shows such as Never Mind the Buzzcocks should be toned down to prevent glamorising insults and nastiness.

Mr Sinnott, the union secretary, said guests had criticised physical characteristics of fellow stars and questioned their sexuality.

“I believe all sections of our society have a responsibility not to reinforce cruel and personal attacks,” he said.

“Too often children go beyond accepted norms, saying things that attack a classmate’s size or the sexuality of a teacher.

“Too often such cruel behaviour can be seen on television.”

Never Mind The Buzzcocks is a BBC2 music quiz show, presented by Simon Amstell, featuring comedians as team captains accompanied by celebrity musicians.

“We are promoting a type of speaking to each other that diminishes other people,” said Mr Sinnott. “It’s picked up by other youngsters who are developing it and are, I think, exceeding norms of decency.”

Mr Sinnott went on to attack the trend for young girls to emulate “size zero” models and boys to take anabolic steroids in pursuit of “designer bodies”.

“In order to conform to what is perceived as the norm or that which is beautiful, young people can resort to some terrifying measures,” he said.
We wonder if Sinnot has got anywhere with his crusade to stop video game stores selling the new Bully game. Obviously not because now his new target is Never Mind The Buzzcocks.

Once again the NUT shows that they think kids to be stupid. Surely children will see the insults in the show as personal digs towards the lives of the celebrities involved. Unless there are any drug addled pop stars in school playgrounds that kids can “bully” there’s nothing to worry about.

Sinnot really needs to get a sense of humour. The insults in Buzzcocks are all in good humour. There has been a few occasions when some premaddona pop star has got the hump (like that twit Preston from Ordinary Boys) but most have taken it as a joke.

“Mr Sinnott, the union secretary, said guests had criticised physical characteristics of fellow stars and questioned their sexuality.”

And often that’s all been done lightheartedly and with good humour and the guests have taken it as joke and laughed along with it and given back as good as they’ve got.
Mediasnoops does wish that rent-a-quotes like Steve Sinnot would just see such programmes as what they are a bit of a fun which nobody including children take seriously.
Teacher union leaders like Sinnot should quit making soundbite comments about how TV programmes are to blame for bad behaviour amongst children just go get themselves in the papers and concentrate on finding ways to make the children in their care get a better education.
 

Byron Review to be published on 27th March

As Mediasnoops has noted before the self appointed moral guardians will be dissapointed that the Byron Review does not recomend the kind of sweeping censorship legislation and total bans that they want.

From the Melon Farmers:

Diary:  A Date with Tanya Byron…
  
Byron Review publishing date and presentation
See full article from MCV
 
27th March

The Department for Children, Schools and Families has told MCV that Tanya Byron’s Review into violence in modern media is to be published next Thursday, March 27th.

The paper is widely expected to recommend a ‘cinema style’ unified ratings system for games – which could spell the end for either the current PEGI or BBFC classifications on software.

See full article from Spong

April 3rd, BAFTA, Piccadilly, London

Dr Tanya Byron, who leads the review process, will be speaking about it at the British Academy of Film and Television Arts (BAFTA) headquarters in London’s Piccadilly on April 3rd.

According to BAFTA: Dr Byron will be coming to BAFTA to present the thinking behind her report and take questions.

The evening is co-presented by BAFTA and Showcomotion Children’s Media Conference, reflecting the conference’s role in exploring the creative, business and regulatory issues facing the entire children’s media and entertainment industry. The moderator for the evening will be Marc Goodchild, Head of Children’s Interactive and On-Demand at BBC Children’s.
The Byron Review recomends giving more information to parents about content which is unsuitable for their children and cinema style rating systems for video games to prevent children getting their hands on adult games.
Mediasnoops believes such recomendations are a fair method of ensuring parents are aware of content in video games and on the internet which they do not want their children to have acsess too and preventing children having acsess to video games which are not suitable for their age.
Mediasnoops hopes that video game retailers abide by any new age ratings system so they act as responsbible retailers by not selling adult video games to children.
Mediasnoops is glad that the Byron Review does not recomend the BAN IT ALL FOR EVERYONE NOW approach favoured by pressure groups like Mediawatch UK and believes the recomendations that have been put forward are effective in balancing the need to protect children from unsuitable content with the freedom of adults to choose what legal material they view.

Manhunt 2 release sparks Barmy Brazier “public appeals” crusade

And who would be the members of the public who would appeal against the release of video games like Manhunt 2? That’s right Daily Mail reading Tory voting middle England.

From Gamers Blast:

British MP continues fight against Manhunt 2

You’d think the BBFC’s official unbanning of an edited version of Manhunt 2 would officially end the battle by the game’s release. You’d be wrong though, as Kent Online reports that Kent MP Julian Brazier is working to introduce a “public appeals process” to overturn BBFC decisions, like the one that paved the way for Manhunt 2’s release.

Brazier’s Private Members Bill to reform the BBFC was discussed and eventually stopped in Parliament late last month, but that hasn’t stopped Brazier from trying to revive its political chances. Brazier insists that the eventual decision to release Manhunt 2 “shows once again that the BBFC and its appeals system do not meet the concerns of the public” and that “the public wants a significant tightening up in that vital area.” Earlier that month, Brazier accompanied Gordon Brown in a meeting with Giselle Pakeerah, a mother who believes the original Manhunt contributed to her son’s murder.

“You’d be wrong though, as Kent Online reports that Kent MP Julian Brazier is working to introduce a “public appeals process” to overturn BBFC decisions, like the one that paved the way for Manhunt 2’s release.”

Brazier is under the assumption that masses of the British public are up in arms about the release of games like Manhunt 2 and want something done to stop them being released. He and his supporters assume that the entire British public share the same ultra censorious BAN IT ALL NOW views he does.

A public appeals process to overturn BBFC decisions…..

A process to give Daily Mail readers the chance to dictate what other people should and should not be looking at more like!

And if there is going to be a public appeals process to overturn BBFC decisions perhaps it should work both ways. How about giving the public the right to overturn the BBFC’s decisions to ban certain films and video games? Ah but Brazier and co wouldn’t like that would they? A bunch of sick and twisted horror movie fans having the right to appeal to the BBFC to let them see more of their “corrupting evil filth”. No no no!

“Brazier insists that the eventual decision to release Manhunt 2 “shows once again that the BBFC and its appeals system do not meet the concerns of the public.”

Bollox! The public’s “concerns” was never part of the BBFC’s original decision to ban Manhunt 2. That was based not on the “concerns” of the public but on knee jerk reactionism and the crusades of a few MPs and pressure groups.

There isn’t mass public concern over film and video game violence. The concern mainly comes from a bunch of self appointed moral guadrian MPs and campaigners who claim to represent the public’s concerns.

“the public wants a significant tightening up in that vital area.”

Tightening up as in more bans and censorship? Doubtful.

We thought that some MPs would try to campaign to overturn the BBFC’s decision to ban Manhunt 2 and that would be based not on evidence of public outrage over it’s release but on the biased agenda driven views of MPs such as Julian Brazier.

Junk science behind calls to ban junk food ads

Interesting colloum from Spiked that talks about how calls to ban adverts for junk food are based on junk science and how there is no evidence that children’s eating habits are influenced by what they see in TV adverts:

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4893/

Illegal Iraq war 5 years on and Mediasnoops are still wondering….

…………….what film or video game caused Tony Blair to want to join America in the illegal slaughter of thousands of innocent Iraqis.

Maybe the Gordon Brown’s, Kieth Vaz’s, Julian Brazier’s and John Beyer’s of this world can work that one out.

Then they can campaign to ban it.

Iraq is in a mess.

Iraqis are being slaughtered by violent religious extremists.

Things are worse than when Saddam Hussain was in charge.

Yet our government sits on it’s arse worrying about trivial things like films and video games.

MPs like Julian Brazier and Kieth Vaz spend more time working out ways to ban things than holding the government to account for the mess and terror it’s caused in Iraq.

Makes you so proud to be British doesn’t it!

Anti-smoking nutters call for 18 rating for films with smoking in them

Yet more evidence that the self appointed health police gets ever more wacky.

From the BBC courtesy of the Melon Farmers:

Call to restrict smoking scenes 
Rowan Bridge
BBC News, Liverpool 

An anti-smoking group in Liverpool is calling for all movies with smoking scenes to be given an 18 certificate.
SmokeFree Liverpool told BBC’s Radio 5 Live it wanted to see the change but the film classification board said the idea was “heavy-handed”.

The push – backed by the city council – comes amid research showing young people pick up the bad habit from watching films containing smoking.

One city official said Liverpool may even act alone to restrict film access.

Andy Hull, the city’s head of public protection and chair of SmokeFree Liverpool, said an adult rating on movies that depict smoking will reduce the number of young people lighting up.

“The international evidence…is that one in two children between 11 and 18 who witness smoking in movies actually experiment with – and therefore start – smoking themselves,” Mr Hull said of recent research.

Liverpool already carries the unenviable title of lung cancer capital of England, with some of the highest smoking rates in the UK.

Not popular

Mr Hull said Liverpool wants the British Board of Film Classification to act.

But a spokeswoman for the film board said smoking and alcohol use are already taken into consideration when a film is rated and a blanket 18 certificate for all smoking scenes is “heavy handed”.

“To simply classify a film 18 because people smoke in it would not be popular with the public,” the spokeswoman said, adding an extensive public consultation has already examined the issue to come up with existing guidelines.

For example, if a character popular with children such as Harry Potter was somehow promoting cigarettes or seen smoking, the film would be rated accordingly, she said.

“We would take that very seriously,” she added.

Dr Stacey Anderson, of the UK Centre for Tobacco Control Studies, said the evidence of smoking’s influence on young people is very clear.

“The more smoking a child views in films, the more likely they are to take up smoking,” she said of the scientific evidence gathered in the United States and elsewhere.

Dr Anderson said characters do not even have to be smoking for there to be an adverse influence, just the sight of a pack of cigarettes or a tobacco advertisement has an effect on youth attitude.

She said if part of the role of the film board is to protect young people from potential harm, then smoking should be included in those considerations.

Mr Hull said if the BBFC is not prepared to adopt an 18 certificate then the city will consider using licensing laws to bring in its own stricter ratings for films screened locally.
“To simply classify a film 18 because people smoke in it would not be popular with the public.”

Ahh the self appointed health police don’t give a shit what the public think. They will say “So what if the public don’t like it? They should just agree to what we say is best for them.”
“Mr Hull said if the BBFC is not prepared to adopt an 18 certificate then the city will consider using licensing laws to bring in its own stricter ratings for films screened locally.”

So the city will overide the rulings of the BBFC and impose censorship on it’s cinema goers! Let’s hope cinema goers oppose that!
Young people will be stopped from going in to see films that are not extremly violent or feature material which is unsuitable for their age (such as explict sexual content) but just because some anti-smoking group objects to scenes where someone has a ciggie in his/her mouth.

“Andy Hull, the city’s head of public protection and chair of SmokeFree Liverpool, said an adult rating on movies that depict smoking will reduce the number of young people lighting up.”

No it won’t. Young people start smoking because other people around them (mainly their friends and family) smoke and not because they might see smoking in films.

“She said if part of the role of the film board is to protect young people from potential harm, then smoking should be included in those considerations.”

This just implies young people are stupid and will just got out and smoke because they see it in a film.
And as with violence in films the harm comes from the act itself and not just depictions of it.
Even if there isn’t any harmful to young people content in a film itself an entire film should be considered harmful because it may contain just ONE scene where someone smokes? That’s just bollox!

“The more smoking a child views in films, the more likely they are to take up smoking.”

That’s if they haven’t been educated by parents and teachers that smoking is bad for you. Once again the film industry is asked to act as a wet nurse for kids. Teach them to eat their greens, don’t fight with anyone, don’t drink, don’t smoke, don’t have unprotected sex etc etc. It’s because those in charge of kids are generally too bone idle to teach that themselves that films are being told to do it.

We don’t see why young people should be banned from watching films that do not feature adult content just because someone in them is smoking.

Consumer groups in world wide bid to ban kids junk ads

As we always say most consumer groups are always trying to take away
consumer freedoms with their ever growing calls for more bans and
regulation against consumer choice.
Once bans for junk food ads aimed at kids comes into practice then
the consumer groups (aided by the health police) will call for a
total ban on all ads for junk food.
Then the government will see the way clear to slapping more taxes on
foods they deam unhealthy.
But that’s probably just what a lot of consumer groups want because
if you are a lentil eating, teetotal, non smoking veggie they think
you can have all the rights in the world but if you like the odd
McDonalds burger, drink and smoke (oh and drive a 4×4 as well) the
believe you should have zero rights and be taxed and punished until
you change your unhealthy and unethical ways.

From Which Magazine:

Fresh bid to ban junk food marketing to kids
Consumer groups from across globe launch new code

Which? and other consumer groups from across the globe have launched
proposals to drastically cut the amount of junk food marketing to
children.

Obesity experts have also joined the coalition in calling for
governments to adopt an international code on the marketing of food
and drinks to kids as a major step in helping to protect the 177
million children currently threatened by obesity related diseases.

Consumers International (CI) and the International Obesity Task Force
(IOTF) will be recommending the code to the World Health Assembly in
May.

TV watershed
The code tackles the failures of the food industry to regulate itself.

It demands a ban on radio or TV adverts promoting unhealthy food
between 6am and 9pm.

It also calls for a ban on the marketing of unhealthy food using new
media – such as websites, social networking sites and text messaging.

The code wants food companies to stop using free gifts and toys which
appeal to children to promote unhealthy foods, and calls for a ban on
the use of celebrities, cartoon characters and competitions to market
unhealthy food.

Food promotions
Which? chief policy advisor Sue Davies said: `With rising rates of
obesity and diet-related disease escalating globally, food companies
need to take a more responsible approach to the way they market their
foods to children whichever part of the world they are trading in.

`The CI/IOTF Code sets out the approach that we hope the World Health
Organisation, national governments and the companies themselves will
adopt to curb unhealthy food promotions and instead help to promote
healthier messages.’

“The code wants food companies to stop using free gifts and toys
which appeal to children to promote unhealthy foods, and calls for a
ban on the use of celebrities, cartoon characters and competitions to
market unhealthy food.”

Why don’t they just go the whole hog and call for everything fun to
be banned?

Should it really be the role of governments to stop McDonalds giving
away free toys with Happy Meals and to stop Coca-Cola having Wayne
Rooney in their adverts? No!

“It also calls for a ban on the marketing of unhealthy food using new
media – such as websites, social networking sites and text messaging.”

Couldn’t there be a system implemented which gives parents the option
to block adverts for foods THEY decide is unhealthy (and not the self
appointed health police and consumer groups) when their kids go on
the internet instead of the nanny state just banning them?
Ahh but we can’t trust parents to look after their own kids’ health
because they’ve all been “brainwashed” by those “evil” food
corperations haven’t they?

Once a “code” is drawn up to stop ads for junk food aimed at children
in both TV and on the internet the consumer groups will align
themselves with the health police to call for a total ban on all junk
food adverts.