Look away now…Daily Mail use Jacqui Smith scandel to rant against TV porn

The fact that her husband was claiming tax payers money to pay for pay-per-view porn channels has given the Daily Mail a nice opportunity to push their PORN IS EVIL BAN IT agenda.

The writer, a mother of two (always gives a sense of moral superority and and a suitable amount of “If you disagree you are evil!” emotional blackmail) plays the WON’T SOMEBODY PLEAAASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN angle!

From the Daily Mail:

Look away now Jacqui Smith! A mother-of-two delivers her troubling verdict on TV porn

By Olivia Lichtenstein
 31st March 2009

 

 

 

 

The case of Jacqui Smith’s husband raises disturbing questions about the availability of porn on TV. We asked Olivia Lichtenstein, a writer and Bafta award-winning documentary maker who’s married with children aged 15 and 20, to watch several subscription channels…

A young woman wearing too much make-up knocks on the door of a semi-detached house, and a second woman of a similar age answers. Before the front door has closed behind them, they are pawing at each other and kissing.

Seconds later, they are pulling each other’s clothes off, their hands and mouths working in a frenzied – if unconvincing – parody of insatiable desire.

‘Crude, pathetic and offensive’: TV porn has the appeal of a grubby Soho peep-show

Elsewhere, a man orders two ‘take-away bimbos’ over the telephone. They arrive, a specifically requested unmatched pair, one blonde, the other brunette, and under his gaze fondle and undress each other like automatons, mouthing filthy words of encouragement and pleading with him to join in. He does.

Their depilated bodies – female pubic hair has no place in this parallel universe – leave nothing to the imagination; their faces are contorted into gurning expressions of pleasure as they pretend to be having the time of their lives. It’s all so predictable, crude, pathetic and offensive. Poorly shot and badly staged, it has all the appeal of a grubby Soho peep-show.

So why am I, a mother of two, sitting on the sofa, polluting my home and my mind with these horrible images on the television screen in the corner of the living room? Well, I wanted to find out exactly what it was that the Home Secretary’s husband has been viewing at the taxpayers’ expense. What did these 18-rated full-length films and ‘the best of amateur video and adult entertainment’ really contain?

 

On the Sky menu that comes up on my screen at home, there is a section marked ADULT. On selecting it, I quickly discovered that there are 65 X-rated channels on my Sky box, all of which are either subscription or pay-per-view.

Flicking through, scantily-clad girls, some of whom looked only a couple of years older than my own 15-year-old daughter, invited me to ‘watch the dirtiest UK amateur action. Genuine home-grown footage from real people at it in their own homes, perhaps even your neighbours!’

Although you have to subscribe either on the phone or online to watch the films in their entirety, there are plenty of insalubrious images on the trailers at your (or indeed your children’s) disposal at the mere push of a button.

Easy access: It took just one hour to subscribe to an adult package on Sky, costing £15.99 a month, plus a £15 joining fee

Red Hot TV’s Dirty Debutantes introduce themselves on such accessible-to-all trailers: ‘Hi, my name’s Verity from Birmingham. I like c***s, I like sex toys,’ says one pneumatic young girl with a vacant expression and a fake smile.

Also available to all are the exclusively female voice-overs on other channels, who assert ‘we recognise that you’re not here for the plot’, while heralding their upcoming attractions: Dirty Chavs, Girls in Uniform, Filthy Fetish Freaks – you get the picture. Other trailers offer sound bites from half-naked women which are too unseemly to print in a family newspaper.

Much of the footage is of a very amateur, ‘readers’ wives’ nature. While many of the women look self-conscious and embarrassed, others approach their task with a gusto that seems born of desperation.

One channel seeks to entice prospective subscribers with a ‘happy half-hour’, where you can sign up for a recession-busting package.

I decided to subscribe to a similar 3-in-1 package to the Home Secretary’s husband: Playboy TV, the Adult Channel and Spice Extreme. (Playboy TV’s website, quick to capitalise on the recent unexpected attention, has this to say yesterday: ‘We’d like to offer all MPs and their husbands a special VIP subscription to Playboy.’)

When I called to subscribe, an automated service asked me to hold, stating that all operators were busy. No shortage of new subscribers then.

The phone line operator, when she answered, sounded as bored and weary as a hooker on her final trick of the night. Since my husband’s name is on our Sky package, I had to hand him the phone for him to authorise my usage. (I wonder whose name is on the Timney-Smith household’s TV package?).

Garbage viewing: Ms Lichtenstein says actresses such as the one above are the ‘battery hens of the sex industry’

The cost is £15.99 a month, with an additional £15 joining fee and a guarantee that there will be no mention of what you have purchased on your bank or credit card statement – though that will come as cold comfort to Mr Timney after his viewing of two blue films was exposed.

Once subscribed, you can generally access the content from television, laptop or mobile phone. It took a mere hour for the satellite signal to be authorised and to reach my television screen. The Adult Channel promises the viewer the best of British action, boasting that they have ‘everything you want, everything you need’.

They’re on the hunt for MILFs, or Mothers I’d Like to ****. As a mother myself, I found this particularly upsetting. What children could ever want their own mother paraded under this banner for the titillation of strangers?

Playboy TV, meanwhile, calls for viewers to send in amateur footage for them to screen, thus cashing in on people’s insatiable thirst for ‘celebrity’ at any price.

There used to be a time when fame and notoriety were two different words – now it’s all rolled up and seductively packaged as ‘fame’, which is no more than 15 minutes of squalid self-degradation.

With women like the topless models Jordan and Jodie Marsh as their role models, is it any wonder that taking your clothes off on these tawdry porn channels might seem a shortcut to the desired state of ‘rich ‘n’ famous’ to which too many young women mindlessly aspire.

Even after watching this material for a few minutes, I was left wanting a good hot bath to wash away the degradation and tawdriness of the experience.

On the Spice Extreme channel, once I have subscribed I am bombarded by a blizzard of offers luring me to watch programmes like Teen Fetish Slags: ‘Meet dirty young babes who aren’t afraid to be dominated. Leather, lace and some vigorous spanking sessions will make sure they behave in the bedroom.’

If it wasn’t so pathetic, it would be laughably absurd. Imagine receiving a work schedule which demands that on Monday you’re a lesbian and on Tuesday, a dominatrix, while on Wednesday you’re a passive maiden half-raped by a strong man.

Why? Married to a powerful woman – the Home Secretary – perhaps Richard Timney watches porn because it makes him feel in control

 

You wear leather, you wear lace, you take part in the euphemistic game that is ‘water sports’ and you claim to love it all. These poor women must lose all sense of themselves.

The thing that comes through most strongly in these so-called films, is that the objectification of women is absolutely routine, as if in this seedy world the feminist revolution never happened.

Could this be the key to why Mr Timney likes it so much? He has such a powerful wife – who is also his boss. Does the watching of such material where women bow so totally to the desires of men allow him to feel in control for once?

Those of a liberal bent will argue that what adults do in the privacy of their own homes need not concern us. Perhaps. But in this case we, the taxpayers, are being asked to pay for it.

One of the many bitter ironies to emerge from this sorry story is that not only did Ms Smith allow his tawdry entertainment to be charged to her expenses, but as Home Secretary – Britain’s first female one, incidentally – she is the person responsible for regulating the adult entertainment industry.

As part of that, she has been determined to introduce tough licensing laws for lap dancing clubs, as well as outlining plans to outlaw paying for sex with a woman controlled by another for their financial gain.

Who can say whether the women her husband was watching perform for his gratification were not coerced to take part in filming for the gain of others? Were these women keeping the money they earned, or were they forced to hand it over to pimps or agents?

After two hours of watching these channels, my conclusion was that these ‘films’ are degrading, exploitative, overlaid with terrible music and, once the shock has worn off, unutterably dull.

While you become an expert in female anatomy, you learn almost nothing about the male nude. The men, in any case make relatively rare appearances – ‘girl-on-girl action’ is the order of the day, however heterosexual the women may be. Clever camera angles stop short of actual penetration, but it’s abundantly clear what is going on at all times.

In short, what I saw were unlovely people doing unlovely things.

It’s hard to imagine that only a century has passed between a flash of ankle sending a man wild and this unadulterated and depressing, commercialised porn being readily available in our own homes.

These ‘actresses’ are the battery hens of the sex industry – performing what any sane person would see as horrible and degrading acts for the cheapened pleasure of others.

Addiction: Porn users gradually need to raise the stakes to achieve the same sexual gratification

The problem with pornography, of course, is that those same degrading acts will soon not be degrading enough. The user has constantly to raise the stakes in order to derive the same thrill. It’s no wonder that this kind of porn has been compared to crack cocaine.

Pornography is addictive and, as with any addiction, the user’s need steadily increases and demands ever more shocking, titillating and fetishistic stimuli.

What is the effect of all this on a marriage? Chris Diggins, a relationship counsellor, asserts that porn can lead to harmful, sexually addictive behaviour, that it isolates individuals and can damage their relationships with their wives and children, and that the use of pornography is ultimately corrosive as men become addicted to high intensity pleasure and lose the ability to enjoy other simpler, more healthy pleasures – such as making love to their wives.

I don’t know whether this is true, but I’m certain that this mindless filth tarnishes the way in which men perceive women.

However hard we have fought to be recognised as equals in the workplace and in society, this cannot fail to reaffirm that, for some men, women remain sex objects whose principle purpose is the sexual gratification of men.

This is a depressing thought for those of us with teenage daughters and sons who have worked hard to bring them up as mutually respectful human beings. It sends a message that it is acceptable for men to treat women as whores – and for women to behave like them, too.

Hundreds of hours of this garbage television are available each day from ten at night until four in the morning in our living rooms – the result of a dangerously misguided liberalism which says there should be no censorship, no moral checks – that we are all grown up enough to see and do whatever we wish.

My greatest fear is that our children will grow up thinking this sort of material is normal – that all men and women are like this.

The programmes on these channels are as loveless, cheap, sad and depressing as Britain itself is in danger of becoming. That surely, for those with children and teenagers at home, is the most worrying fact of all.

 

“Hundreds of hours of this garbage television are available each day from ten at night until four in the morning in our living rooms.”

Our living rooms? The living rooms of Daily Mail readers? No! They are avaliable only  in the living rooms of people who CHOOSE to pay for it!

Of course both the writer of this artcile and The Daily Mail believes such people should be stopped from seeing it in their living rooms and anywhere else for that matter.

“the result of a dangerously misguided liberalism which says there should be no censorship, no moral checks – that we are all grown up enough to see and do whatever we wish. “

In other words Ms Lichtenstien believes we arn’t grown up enough to see and do whatever we wish and we should be stopped from seeing and doing whatever we wish.

Or at least stopped from seeing and doing things that the Daily Mail believes we shouldn’t be seeing and doing.

“The programmes on these channels are as loveless, cheap, sad and depressing as Britain itself is in danger of becoming. “

Personal opinion! No reason to ban these channels and stop people from paying for and viewing them.

“My greatest fear is that our children will grow up thinking this sort of material is normal – that all men and women are like this. “

Who’s OUR children? The children of Daily Mail readers? Are the children of Daily Mail readers paying for and watching porn TV channels with this sort of material?

Maybe some Daily Mail readers have pay-per-view porn on their TVs and they arn’t making sure their kids arn’t watching them.

Never!

“I don’t know whether this is true, but I’m certain that this mindless filth tarnishes the way in which men perceive women. “

No you don’t know whether this is true love. But because you are sure this “mindless filth” tarnishes the way in which men perceieve women it men should be stopped from looking at it eh?

“Those of a liberal bent will argue that what adults do in the privacy of their own homes need not concern us. Perhaps. But in this case we, the taxpayers, are being asked to pay for it. “

In this case yes. For which Ms Smith’s husband should be held accountable!

But the underlying view of Ms Lictenstien’s article is that really this “filth” should not be avaliable at all.

So she obviously believes what adults do in the privacy of their own homes should concern us.

And by us she means Daily Mail readers!

 

Banish parenting “TV IS EVIL BAN IT” busybodies to their rooms

We’ll just ignore all the other things that are breaking up families and causing bad behaviour then shall we?

From the Daily Mail:

TVs in children’s bedrooms ‘are breaking up families and causing bad behaviour’

By Laura Clark
31st March 2009

Parents should banish televisions from children’s bedrooms because they break up families and create classrooms of badly behaved pupils, a teachers’ leader warned yesterday.

Dr Mary Bousted, general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, revealed that growing numbers of youngsters were starting school unable to hold conversations because they talk so little with their parents.

She said families are leading separate lives under one roof because children as young as four spend hours alone watching TV in their rooms, even eating their dinner there.

 

Setting a bad example: Modern comedy shows like Little Britain, which features Matt Lucas’s character Vicky Pollard, have been blamed for pupils’ bad behaviour

A survey of almost 800 ATL members found television had a strong influence on pupils’ behaviour, with Big Brother, Little Britain and EastEnders causing the most problems.

 

Other shows named as bad examples included Hollyoaks, Skins and The Simpsons.

School staff said such programmes led to bad behaviour in pupils, such as answering back, storming off, swearing, aggression and sexually inappropriate behaviour.

They also complained of the heavy use of catchphrases such as ‘Am I bovvered?’ and ‘whatev-ah’ from The Catherine Tate Show.

Bovvered? Catherine Tate as her schoolgirl alter-ego Lauren

Dr Bousted said TV companies should take more responsibility for such content but parents had the ‘bigger responsibility’.

‘Children are watching more TV and more children have TVs in their own bedrooms so it is very difficult for parents to supervise what they are watching,’ she said.

‘I don’t think children should have TVs in their bedrooms. Bedrooms should be where children sleep.’

She added: ‘This notion of TVs everywhere breaks up families. They are together in the same house but essentially live an isolated existence. You are nominally living together but living separate lives.’

A classroom teacher at a state secondary school said: ‘Little Britain caused a lot of answering back when it was on, and the content in any case was not appropriate for the year 7-9 pupils who I know watched it.’

Teachers also reported primary school pupils taking part in kicking and fighting games picked up from shows such as Power Rangers and Ben 10, the latter of which is said to be a favourite in Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s household.

The ATL’s annual conference in Liverpool next week will debate whether to lobby broadcasters to take into account the consequences of showing examples of bad behaviour before the watershed.

 

‘I don’t think children should have TVs in their bedrooms. Bedrooms should be where children sleep.’

Parents must be getting sick to the back teeth of people who think they know how to raise children so much better than them telling them how to raise their own kids.

What if parents don’t stop letting their children have TVs in their bedrooms? No doubt these self appointed guardians of children will lobby for  a law to make them stop letting their children have TVs in their bedrooms.

The general message coming from teachers unions is that bad behaviour from children is all the fault of TV and shows like Little Britain and Catherine Tate.

They won’t do anything themselves about bad behaviour in their classrooms so they pin all the blame squarly on TV and at parents for letting their own kids’ have TVs in their bedrooms.

Every time a teachers’ union has a conference there isn’t any real soloutions for solving the problems that many children face in school coming out. There is only scapegoating, blaming and calls to ban this or ban that! Worthless!

The right-wing press, who complain endlessly about the nanny state seem quite happy to hear these unions dictating to parents how they should raise their kids as it makes for good headlines!

Beyer goes bang bang about ipod gun app

It’s obvious the makers of this feature created it because they knew it would cause uproar from the usual rent-a-quotes.

From The Metro:

Anger over iPhone ‘gangsta’ gun game

Monday, March 30, 2009

The range of iPhone gun applications are all available on iTunes

An application which turns the Apple iPhone into a toy gun has caused outrage among anti-gun campaigners.

The software is available from Apple’s iTunes download store, enabling any iPhone or iPod Touch user to transform their handset into a mock firearm.

Makers of the app boast it allows users to “experience the sweet release you can only get from a finely crafted firearm – a firearm so smooth and well-balanced it feels like an extension of your own hand”.

 

A number of different versions of the application are available from 59p, including revolvers, shotguns and a ‘gangsta edition’ with the serial number etched off.

In a press release to promote the applications, known as Bang Bang, Tak Tak and Boom Boom among other names, French company Damabia said they were like ‘cops and robbers… with style’.

“What better fun can you have than to shoot all your friends, and not hurt them? With Bang ! Bang !, and Bang ! Bang ! Original Gangsta, you can play cops and robbers, even if you’re grown up,” said Jean-Paul Florencio, CEO of Damabia.

But campaigners have reacted with anger and called for the immediate withdrawal of the range of apps.

Claudia Webbe, the chair of an independent advisory group for the Metropolitan Police’s Operation Trident gun-crime force, told the Evening Standard: “This is hugely irresponsible in a climate when we are trying to get guns off the streets.

“I am stunned this game should ever have been allowed to have been made. We have spent years trying to get imitation guns out of shops and this sort of product undermines that effort.”

John Beyer of mediawatch UK added: “In view of recent events in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, I think anything that glamorises guns and shooting is in extremely poor taste.

“I would hope that whoever is responsible for this would withdraw it immediately.”

Apple is said to have no immediate plans to withdraw the applications, although the company did agree to remove the Slasher game last year after consumer pressure.

Slasher mimicked a stabbing sequence, using a knife in a similar way to the guns on the Bang Bang series.

 

“John Beyer of mediawatch UK added: “In view of recent events in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, I think anything that glamorises guns and shooting is in extremely poor taste. “

Can you include our war mongering leaders who think the only way to solve disputes is through guns, shooting and violence Johnny Boy?

Anything that glamourises guns….Should we start banning wild western movies then Johnny?

Claudia Webbe, the chair of an independent advisory group for the Metropolitan Police’s Operation Trident gun-crime force, told the Evening Standard: “This is hugely irresponsible in a climate when we are trying to get guns off the streets.

“I am stunned this game should ever have been allowed to have been made. We have spent years trying to get imitation guns out of shops and this sort of product undermines that effort.”

It’s not really an imitation gun is it? It’s still a mobile phone! Anyone who walks in to a shop and holds up a gun and yells STICK EM UP! is just gonna look stupid!

Never let the facts gets in the way of a good rent-a-quote opportunity!

More teacher union TV blame bollox

Teachers’ unions continue to sit around and blame TV and the media for pupils missbehaving so that they don’t have to do anything about it.

From The Telegraph:

Four-year-old pupils copying bad behaviour they see on TV, teachers warn
The behaviour of the youngest children in school is deteriorating because of the constant swearing and vulgarity they are exposed to on television, teachers have warned.
 
Julie Henry, Education Correspondent
29th Mar 2009

Children in reception class, who are aged just four and five, are increasingly using bad language, talking back to staff and throwing tantrums when they don’t get their own way – re-enacting scenes they have seen on screen, according to members of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers.

Even programmes aimed at improving children’s behaviour, such as Supernanny, are giving pupils ideas about how to create havoc in the classroom.

In a motion at the union’s annual conference next month, teachers will vote to lobby broadcasters to cut swearing, routine violence, inappropriate name-calling and unruly behaviour from programmes which are likely to be seen by children.

The call follows increasing concerns about plummeting standards in broadcasting, sparked by the goading of 78-year-old actor Andrew Sachs by comedian Russell Brand and presenter Jonathan Ross on BBC radio.

Analysis by The Sunday Telegraph found that in a typical week, the f-word and its derivatives are used nearly 90 times in evening viewing.

“Just recently, bad behaviour seems to be percolating down to the younger children,” said Alison Sherratt, a reception class teacher at Riddlesden St Mary’s Church of England Primary School, in Keighley, West Yorkshire.

“I have been teaching since 1973, so I have seen a lot of children, but this year particularly teachers are having some real challenges.

“It is not behaviour which is overtly violent but there is an awful lot of inappropriate language by the little ones.

“The difference is the level of casualness with which these words are trotted out. Ever younger children are also using more extreme words. A few years ago if a child had sworn in class, it would have been talked about in the staffroom.

“Now it isn’t even mentioned because it is no surprise.”

Rude hand gestures in the playground were more frequent and there was a growing tendency among pupils to refuse to do what the teacher has told them, she said.

“I’m not decrying Supernanny because I think she offers parents some very useful tips, but it is obvious that children use some of the behaviour of the kids on the shows on purpose.

“I had one four year old stand with his hands on his hips saying ‘I suppose you’re going to put me on the naughty step now?’”

Reality show Big Brother, cartoons such as the American import Family Guy, comedian Catherine Tate, and swearing TV chefs, such as Gordon Ramsay and Jamie Oliver, were all criticised by the teacher, who will propose the motion at the union’s conference in Liverpool.

“Some are shown before the watershed and there are repeats on digital channels as early as 4 o’clock in the afternoon,” she said. “Children are watching it and copying it.”

Ms Sherratt said the problem was made worse by parents’ low expectations of behaviour.

“A few years ago if the pupils had done something wrong and I had told the parent, they would have been surprised, disappointed, and apologetic,” she said. “Nowadays it is almost like that behaviour is the norm.

“I’ve had parents say to me at open days ‘you’ll know about it when you get him’. They say it in front of the child and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. I’m not blaming parents necessarily, it is culture and society, it is all around us.”

Anne Musgrove, a teacher at Thackley Primary School, in Bradford, said innocuous viewing such as Bill and Ben and Muffin the Mule, had been replaced with adult programmes, while at the same time, some parents were sitting their children in front of the television for long periods of time.

“There is a real problem with poor communication skills among the youngest children and these two things are related,” she said.

“Psychologists tell us that television can affect the growing brain and that children under three should not be watching TV. And yet I’ve seen a survey that found nearly half of three year olds had a TV in their bedroom.

“Another piece of research found that the most watched TV programme among 4-year-olds was EastEnders. They should be in bed at that time.”

A spokesman for Channel 4, which broadcasts some of the programme criticised by teachers, said: “Channel 4 abides by the Ofcom Broadcasting Code and so the strongest language is not broadcast before the watershed; it is only broadcast post-watershed where editorially justified in the context of the individual programme, meets the expectations of viewers and is preceded by appropriate warning.

“Programmes that contain strong language are always responsibly scheduled and preceded by a clear warning.”

The number of primary age children suspended from school because of bad behaviour is on the increase.

In November 2008, figures were released which showed that 3,750 children aged four and five were suspended from school in 2006. A total of 45,500 children aged two to 11 years were suspended, up from 40,000 the year before.

* Teachers will also call for homework to be abolished for primary age children.

The motion claims that homework is “a waste of children’s and teachers’ time, which could be spent much more profitably on effective learning both in and out of the classroom.”

Government guidelines say children should be doing homework from the day they start school.

The amount should rise from one hour a week at age five to more than two hours a day at 16. Ten and 11-year-olds should be doing half and hour of homework every night.

 

“Reality show Big Brother, cartoons such as the American import Family Guy, comedian Catherine Tate, and swearing TV chefs, such as Gordon Ramsay and Jamie Oliver, were all criticised by the teacher, who will propose the motion at the union’s conference in Liverpool.

“Some are shown before the watershed and there are repeats on digital channels as early as 4 o’clock in the afternoon,” she said. “Children are watching it and copying it.”

How do they know children are copying what they see in these programmes? The fact that they may be watching it might be true but there really is no proof that this causes unruly behaviour.

Wider social problems cause poor behaviour in school, blaming TV is just a copout from tackling those problems.
Teachers’ unions are more interested in making shocking statements in order to grab attention from the tabloid press!

Rev Jessie Jackson downplays violent video game blame

Jessie Jackson has worked with some of the poorest black people in America. If anyone knows that the route causes of violence and crime is caused by poverty and other social problems and not video games and films then he does!

From the Melon Farmers:

Family and Economics before Media…

Jesse Jackson talks about violent media in UK Parliament

Based on article from gamepolitics.com
 
The Reverend Jesse Jackson downplayed the influence of violent media in testimony before the British Parliament’s Home Affairs Committee. The committee, which has been investigating knife crime, is chaired by long time video game nutter Keith Vaz.

GamePolitics has transcribed the portions of Jackson’s testimony which relate to media violence issues:

Labour MP Martin Salter: Rev. Jackson, we’ve been taking evidence on the effects or the increasing effect of violent media images on young people, whether it’s in video games, whether it’s on TV, whether it’s the cinema. It seems the evidence were hearing, that there’s a general danger that young people can be desensitized to the concept of violence by the images that they see, but there’s a greater predisposition to violence if those young people are brought up in families and households and communities where actual violence is the norm. Do you have any lessons from America for us on this issue?

Rev. Jesse Jackson: For a long time we challenged music artists and movie makers to be sensitive to the impact that their music and their movies have on children and they have some force… But those who grow drugs in Afghanistan and poppy seeds – they don’t listen to music. This thing is not about music and movies. It’s about a form of economy… we’ve lost more lives from [the drug] war than the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. And we seem to see it as something marginal but it is in the center of our security and it’s getting worse in my judgment… the structural crisis of poverty and drugs and guns is more real than just movies and music.

Labour MP Keith Vaz: Do you accept that there is a link between violent video games and violence that is perpetrated by individuals? Do you think that those images do have an effect on young people?

Rev. Jesse Jackson: There may be some link of imitation. The question, Mr. Chairman, is art imitating life? Is life reflecting art? There’s always a big debate there. What we do know in these troubled times… there’s increased domestic violence in the home. [Children are] more likely to imitate parents fighting physically. Domestic violence is maybe even a bigger factor on violent behavior than the movies and the worst games that are played. So, yes, we urge artists to not use their considerable skills to desensitize people to violence. Sure, these games that think that killing is a game must be challenged. But the economic impact of life options determines whether one is headed up towards university or down toward prison.
Kieth Vaz does not understand is not prepared to tackle the underlying social problems that lead people, particularly young people down a road of crime and violence. He and other politicians like him prefer to point the fingre of blame souly at violent video games other media. It’s so much easier than getting to grips with social problems like poverty, lack of education, lack of parental upbrining, drug and alcohol abuse etc. Plus it does not cost a penny just to blame games and films.

But Jessie Jackson does understand those problems and he’s been able to tackle them. This is not to say poverty is an excuse to commit violence against others but it is a factor, far far more than violent video games are.

Mediasnoops would rather hear ways of tackling youth violence from people like Jackson who’ve been in amongst those young people who’s lives are blighted by crime and violence rather than reactionary types like Vaz who are only concerned with making a name for themselves with the sensationalist tabloid press by calling for violent video games to be banned!

German school shootings: Families call for violent games ban

Now that the families of the victims of this awful tragedy are calling for
violent video games to banned (based not on any kind of evidence that such games
caused their loved ones’ murderer to do what he did) all those who campaign to
ban violent video games will be even more eager to exploit it for their own
ends.

From the Melon Farmers:

German president joins the tirade against computer games

Based on article from google.com

Thousands of people converged on the grieving German town of Winnenden on
Saturday for a memorial service for the 15 victims of a shooting spree by a
17-year-old.

All Germany mourns with you, President Horst Koehler told a congregation of 900:
Each child is born innocent, and when a child dies, it is hope and the future
which dies too, Koehler said, calling for curbs on the kind of violent video
games believed to have influenced the teenage gunman, Tim Kretschmer.

Koehler backed families of the victims who appealed in an open letter for
tighter gun control laws and a ban on violent video games of the kind which
Kretschmer regularly played.

He said there should be restrictions on the spread of the innumerable films and
videogames of extreme violence, with their display of dead bodies, while
individuals should be able to say no to what they feel to be bad.

In their open letter addressed to Merkel and Koehler, the families of five of
the victims said: Despite our pain and anger, we can’t just do nothing. We want
to make sure there is not another Winnenden. They called for teenagers to be
denied access to guns, for violent videos to be banned and violence on
television to be restricted by the introduction of quotas taking into account
the hours when children are likely to be viewing.

“They called for teenagers to be denied access to guns, for violent videos to be
banned and violence on television to be restricted by the introduction of quotas
taking into account the hours when children are likely to be viewing.”

Ending the sale of firearms to the public will go a long way to stopping
tragedies such as this from happening again. But banning violent video games
won’t.

There is no evidence that Tim Kretschmer’s murderous rampage was caused by him
playing violent video games. The fact that such games were found on his computer
by police does not prove that his actions were influenced by those games.
That has just been taken by politicians and some of his victims’ families as
some kind of confirmation that violent video games caused him to kill. And no
doubt anti-video game violence crusaders all across Europe will say because he
had violent games on his computer violent games caused him to kill and therefore
such games should be banned.

The families of Kretschmer’s victims are looking for something to blame (other
than their Kretschmer himself) for their loss and are lashing out at a
convinient scapegoat.

Mediasnoops always wonders when people call for a ban on violent video games how
far such people think we should go in banning those games. Are they just talking
about extremly brutal or violent games or any game which has any kind of
violence whatsover.
If they are for the later then surely a whole host of games should be banned by
their logic. Heck even Sonic The Hedghog has a degree of violence in it (jumping
on the head of baddies to kill them) maybe that should be banned!
Quite a lot of games have some degree of violence in them. You could go as far
as saying we should ban Space Invaders!
Talking about violent video games casts the net as far wide as possible! Perhaps
those who wish to see such games banned believe that the only games that people
should be allowed to play are games like Nintendogs and Animal Crossing. We have
to ask how far we go and where the line is drawn!
Only allowing cute fluffy games will not stop tragedies like the one we have
seen happening!

People For The Ethical Treatment Of Computer Generated Animals

The view from PETA is that killing dogs in video games will cause young people to kill real dogs.

That’s obviously total bollox!

From the Melon Farmers:

Dogs of War…

Whinging that dogs are killed in a computer game

Based on article from blog.peta.org
 
The animal rights activists of PETA wrote on their blog:

Not since we were pitted against Nazi attack dogs when we first escaped from Castle Wolfenstein 17 years ago have we seen such barbaric treatment of dogs in video games as we did in Call of Duty, World at War.

During the course of the game, you are forced to shoot attack dogs and you can actually unlock a reward that allows you to unleash a pack of attack dogs on enemies.

In a post–Michael Vick world, you’d think that Activision Blizzard, which publishes the popular game, would take abusing dogs for entertainment purposes more seriously.

Fortunately, some students at a Massachusetts high school are not keeping quiet about their disgust with Activision. Breanna Lucci said: Killing dogs as a form of entertainment … over and over again. That’s one of the objects of the game. Parents need to know what they are buying their kids. Killing animals should not be a form of entertainment.
“During the course of the game, you are forced to shoot attack dogs and you can actually unlock a reward that allows you to unleash a pack of attack dogs on enemies.”

These are ATTACK dogs. Computer generated attacks dogs that are trying to kill computer generated characters controlled by humans in a VIDEO GAME. They are not real dogs! And they are attack dogs! Presuambly if anyone from PETA was attacked by attack dogs in real life they would try and be nice to it. They might get themselves bitten to death but they reckon people suck anyway and the world would be better if all humans would be dead so they’d gladly sacrifice themselves to preserve animal rights!

“In a post–Michael Vick world, you’d think that Activision Blizzard, which publishes the popular game, would take abusing dogs for entertainment purposes more seriously.”

Michael Vick is an American football star who was done for being involved in dog fighting. This game does not involve dog fighting and there are no games out there which allow players to organise and watch dog fights.
Abusing dogs for entertainment….again these arn’t real dogs they are computer generated dogs. And they are not innocent little puppies but rabid attack dogs. Players are not encouraged to go up and randomly kill dogs!

PETA find any potentially animal rights bandwagon to jump on, even when it comes to computer geneated ones in a fictional video game.

German school shootings: Police union chief calls for violent games ban

“The world would be no poorer if there were no more killergames.”

But the world would be no better either. And there being no more “killergames”
would not stop horrific tragedies like this.

Those who call for violent video games to be banned in the wake of this school
shooting believe that banning such games will instantly stop any risk of any
more schools shootings and that we don’t need to do anything else other than to
ban violent video games to prevent teenagers shooting their fellow pupils.

From the Melon Farmers:

German police union chief calls for ban on killer games

Based on article from gamepolitics.com

The head of Germany’s national police union has called for a ban on violent
video games in the wake of a horrific school shooting earlier this month.

Echo Online cites comments made by Heini Schmitt, head of the Hessen German
Police Union:

It is known that in every situation in which a violent rampage has occurred, the
perpetrator has had a remarked addiction to so-called killergames. The manner of
the deed is astonishingly similar to virtual examples.

For him, the fact that roughly a third of children and youths regularly and
addictively escape into a virtual world sets off alarm bells. Age restrictions
for such games are often ignored. There is admittedly no proof that these
frequent escapes into virtual killerworlds can contribute to such insane deeds.
But neither can the role killergames be completely dismissed.

When a chance to remove a probable cause exists, it must be used, he insisted:
The world would be no poorer if there were no more killergames.

“It is known that in every situation in which a violent rampage has occurred,
the perpetrator has had a remarked addiction to so-called killergames.”

But that does not prove that the cause of the perpetrator’s actions is the
violent video games to which he was addicited.

“The manner of the deed is astonishingly similar to virtual examples.”

Where are the games where players can shoot their classmates then?
The virtual examples are players shooting enemies in war games! How are these
deeds similar?

“There is admittedly no proof that these frequent escapes into virtual
killerworlds can contribute to such insane deeds.”

No there is no proof, all we have is personal prejudiced opinions, rumour and
scaremongering. All of which is not based on evidence of violent video games
causing people to kill but based on the view taken by people with an agenda of
their own that violent vidoe games cause people to kill.

“But neither can the role killergames be completely dismissed.”

So even though there is no proof that violent video games cause people to kill
they should be banned them because this police union guy thinks they cause
people to kill right?

WRONG!

Ban those evil greedy junk food promoting celebs

The hidden subtext is that “greedy” celebrities like David Beckham, Chris Hoy and Girls Aloud are to blame for “poor” children becoming overweight.

From The Mirror:

Chris Hoy and David Beckham slammed for junk food adverts  21/03/2009

Sports stars like Dame Kelly Holmes, Chris Hoy and David Beckham have been blasted for making “hundreds of thousands” promoting junk food.

More than 25 celebrities including Beyonce (Coca Cola) and Girls Aloud (Kit Kat Senses) have put their names to products medical experts say fuel obesity.

But Olympic heroes Holmes (Coco Pops Coco Rocks) and Hoy (Kellogg’s Bran Flakes) and Beckham (Pepsi) have all been faces of high sugar foods and “should be ashamed”, says a Food Commission survey.

Director Jessica Mitchell admits “adding lustre to the image of such foods” is easy money. But she adds: “Maybe the Government should ban celebrities from promoting this junk.”
“Maybe the Government should ban celebrities from promoting this junk.”

Or maybe not. It should not be for the government to control what adverts celebrities should be able to be appear in.

And banning junk food ads with celebs in will not solve the problems we have with food and health!

Mediasnoops was looking at the Food Commision’s website and they call on celebrities to “use their fame for influence rather than lining their pockets”.

Blatent emotional blackmail and smearing. The message is that greedy wicked celebrities don’t care about kids getting fat and dying of heart diseases as long as they can get rich off the backs of doing ads for junk food.

How about similar guilt tripping the parents who feed their kids junk food day in day out?

Oh but of course parents are blameless in all this. It’s those evil greedy celebrities and junk food makers who are making their kids fat!

Bollox!

MadWorld released….Beyer still calling for ban

Press reports of how Mediawatch UK called for MadWorld to be denied a certificate will ensure it’s notoriety and make it a surefire hit!

From The Scotsman:

Game hits new level of violence

Published Date: 20 March 2009

 

A NEW computer game that has been branded the most violent yet was launched yesterday on the previously “family friendly” Wii console.

In MadWorld, players use chainsaws, spiked clubs, daggers and spears to execute victims. They can impale their enemies on road signs, fry them on electrical sockets and rip out their hearts.

Its creators have described it as a “hack and slash game” that “revolves around the themes of brutality and exhilaration”.

The game has been rated 18, but the pressure group Mediawatch-UK said the British Board of Film Classification should not have granted the game any kind of certificate.

John Beyer, its director, said: “It is very well known that children and young people get access to 18-rated games.

“The marketing for Wii is based on family fun, and I believe this game is so unsavoury that it will spoil that,” he added.

To date, Nintendo’s Wii has enjoyed phenomenal success as an innocent alternative to complex – and often violent – role-play video games.

The basic graphics and motion sensor remotes of its mostly sports games have proven a huge hit with young children and families.

MadWorld is a major departure designed to appeal to ‘hardcore’ gamers who have been clamouring for a more adult theme action game.

Fay Burgin, of the game’s publisher, Sega, said: “Although MadWorld is a violent game, this is carried out with irreverent humour and distinct comic-book styling.”

 

 

“It is very well known that children and young people get access to 18-rated games.”

 

Indeed they do. But that means there should be more enforcement of regulation to stop children and young people getting access to 18-rated games. But of course Beyer and Mediawatch UK believe that means banning such games altogether so that nobody can get access to them.

 

“The marketing for Wii is based on family fun, and I believe this game is so unsavoury that it will spoil that,” he added.”

 

Beyer’s still pretending he cares about the marketing success of the Wii. When we all know he just doesn’t want people to be allowed to buy and play games he dissaproves of and for people to be denied violent video games for their “own good”.

 

Video game consumers will decide whether this “unsavory” game spoils the family friendly fun of the Wii, not Beyer or the BBFC!

 

The Sun newspaper report on a “sick stunt” that was done to promote MadWorld….

 

Public sickened by game stunt
An ultra-violent computer game for the family-friendly Nintendo Wii goes on sale tomorrow – amid a sick publicity stunt that saw blood-soaked severed arms placed in cities across the UK.  Madworld from Sega – the firm behind cute Sonic The Hedgehog – is said by its makers to be the “most violent ever” and features a chainsaw-wielding character who goes around executing those around him. 

The adventure is designed in black and white, emphasising the red blood that is spilt with every kill.  The Sun revealed last year how bosses at mediawatch-uk had called for it to be banned but it was then granted an 18+ certificate by the British Board of Film Classification in January 2009.

We couldn’t help notice “bosses from mediawatch-uk” Since when have they been bosses?

Bossing people about by telling them what they can and cannot look at perhaps?