Beyer semi anonymous as Express wipp up Jimmy Carr swearing “outcry”

One outraged quote from the retiring director of an irrelevent and sidelined pressure group represents an outcry.

Lol! We love it!

From The Sunday Express:

 

OUTCRY AS CARR LETS FLY WITH A 4-LETTER TIRADE

 

CONTROVERSY: Carr’s act ‘not for easily offended’

 

Sunday August 30,2009

By Seb Walke

COMEDIAN Jimmy Carr is in trouble with TV watchdogs for swearing once every 60 seconds in his 90-minute stand-up show.

 

He used the F word 36 times and the C word four times in the first hour of the Channel 4 show, which is available to children via 4 On Demand and other internet sites.

Jimmy Carr In Concert was broadcast an hour after the 9pm watershed on August 22 and caused further outrage by containing jokes about the Paralympics, incest and homosexuality. The studio audience included a boy of 14.

A spokesman for the watchdog group Mediawatch-UK said: “This is a disgrace. It is typical of Channel 4 not to take any notice of guidance surrounding bad language.”

Channel 4 has previously had to deal with complaints about the 36-year-old comic, most notably ­because of his comments concerning Michael Jackson’s death on its comedy quiz show 8 Out Of 10 Cats, which he presents.

Carr joked: “Michael Jackson’s death hit me like Princess Diana’s death – I couldn’t give a ****.”

Channel 4 received 114 complaints from viewers.

Carr also defended his friend Jonathan Ross as a “national treasure” after the presenter was suspended for making obscene prank phone calls to actor Andrew Sachs.

Conservative MP Ann Widdecombe, who said she “nearly walked out” of the BBC comedy quiz show Have I Got News For You, on which Carr was a fellow guest, said last night: “His idea of wit is just a barrage of filth.”

Carr has previously refused to apologise for his material. He said: “It’s not for the easily offended. It’s not even for people that are difficult to offend. It’s for people who are without a moral compass.”

The spokesman is indeed old Johnny Boy. He is quoted in Mediawatch UK’s reporting of the story…

http://www.mediawatchuk.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=396&Itemid=138

Perhaps Beyer’s name isn’t in The Sunday Express’s original report as maybe he’s trying to keep a low profile because he steps down as Mediawatch UK director next month.

It’s not reported whether any complaints were made about the swearing in Carr’s stand up show.

Mediasnoops suspects that The Sunday Express saw the show and contacted both Ofcom and Beyer in order to generate another “outrage over swearing on TV by foul mouthed comedian” story.

We saw this insightful and well thought out comment by an Express reader which puts the dubiousness of this report into context…

WATCHING THE MEDIA

30.08.09, 1:39pm

Much of the outcry alleged in this article centres on the accessibility of this stand up show online to children. Primarily this is incorrect as the show is NOT available online to anyone at the Channel 4 On Demand website (see http://www.channel4.com/programmes/jimmy-carr-in-concert/episode-guide/series-1/episode-1). Secondarily it supposes that Channel 4 is, in some way, responsible for its availability elsewhere on the internet, when few would doubt that such censorship is impossible, not to mention the fact that the show was released on DVD all the way back in November 2008. The DVD itself is clearly labelled with an 18 certificate. The watershed exists so that adults can enjoy adult humour without worrying about the overt influence. If there were campaign to change the watershed, then this argument might be put in a different context.

The article itself quotes ‘a spokesman for the watchdog group Mediawatch-UK’ as denouncing this particular show as “a disgrace. It is typical of Channel 4 not to take any notice of guidance surrounding bad language.” This quote is actually attributed by Mediawatch-UK’s website as belonging to – now former – director John Beyer. Yet, though the extract (http://www.mediawatchuk.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=396&Itemid=92) implies him to be the current director, he did in fact resign in July 2009. The broadcast date for ‘…In Concert’ was the 22nd August 2009.

According to Mediawatch-UK’s website:
‘Many people recognise that television has a global impact on moral, ethical, social and political issues as well as the power to influence our society for good or ill. Gone are the days when broadcasters can realistically say that they simply reflect society as it is. More and more society reflects the false attitudes and behaviour portrayed by some parts of the media.’ Chicken or egg?

Nicely said.

 

 

 

Beyer snorts at drugs ban tennis star on Strictley Come Dancing

Yeah a row. Cos an outraged quote from Johnny Boy Beyer represents a massive row as if the whole country, nay the whole word is up in arms.

We should all start burning our licence fees and buring Switzerland flags. Oh and burning tennis rackets and Bruce Forsyth style tupaes.

Nur nur nur good game good game!

From the Daily Mail:

Strictly Come Dancing: BBC in row over decision to include disgraced tennis star Martina Hingis in line-up

By Daily Mail Reporter
26th August 2009

The BBC has been criticised for including former Wimbledon champion Martina Hingis as a contestant in this year’s Strictly Come Dancing.

Disgraced tennis star Hingis, who is thought to be pocketing £50,000 for her part in the Saturday night show, was banned from tennis in 2008 for cocaine abuse.

She will compete against other celebrities including Oxo mum Lynda Bellingham, Ronnie Wood’s estranged wife Jo, and former EastEnders actress Natalie Cassidy.

Row: Martina Hingis, seen here with Strictly dancing partner Matthew Cutler, is banned from tennis for cocaine abuse

But the BBC refused to comment on Hingis’s pay and said it was ‘delighted’ to have the star on the show.Hingis, 28, who won five grand slam titles, was banned for two years by the International Tennis Federation (ITF) in 2008 after testing positive for the drug during the 2007 Wimbledon tournament.

She claims she is ‘100% innocent’, but the ITF ruled against her and ordered her to repay nearly £80,000 in prize money.

John Beyer, of campaign group mediawatch-UK, questioned the BBC’s decision.

He said: ‘This is a family show that is targeted at a family audience.

Ready to rumba: Hingis will compete against Laila Rouass, Phil Tufnell, Zoe Lucker, Joe Calzaghe, Craig Kelly, Natalie Cassidy and Lynda Bellingham

Controversial: The Wimbledon champ was banned from tennis in 2008 for cocaine abuse

‘The danger is that this decision would tend to minimise the seriousness of her drug-taking, which resulted in a ban on her playing.

‘The BBC could have put in many other personalities who I’m sure would love to take part in the show and they could have chosen someone without that record. The question is whether it sets a good or bad example.’

Speaking at the series launch in London, Hingis said of her past: ‘It’s behind me, this is a new challenge.

‘I want people to see a different side to me than the person running round the tennis court.’

Speaking about the competition, she said: ‘Everything I do, I do to win. I am very competitive.”

The BBC said in a statement: ‘As she herself said today, her past is behind her and she is looking forward to a new challenge on the show.’

The full line-up for the show is: Joe Calzaghe, Ali Bastian, Richard Dunwoody, Lynda Bellingham, Ricky Groves, Natalie Cassidy, Chris Hollins, Martina Hingis, Craig Kelly, Jade Johnson, Phil Tufnell, Zoe Lucker, Ricky Whittle, Laila Rouass, Rav Wilding and Jo Wood.

 

“This is a family show that is targeted at a family audience.”

Which translates as…the BBC is exposing families and their children to a drug taking tennis star.

“The danger is that this decision would tend to minimise the seriousness of her drug-taking, which resulted in a ban on her playing.”

In other words youngsters will see Martina Hingis in Strictley Come Dancing, think taking drugs is ok and then go out and snort coke.

Yeah of course.

“The BBC could have put in many other personalities who I’m sure would love to take part in the show and they could have chosen someone without that record.”

So Beyer thinks the BBC should permanently hold indescretions against personalities and never allow them to appear on TV ever.

Ms Hingis has been punished by the tennis authorities and has taken her punishment but that’s clearly not enough for Beyer who believes she should be punished by everyone everywhere.

She should be snubbed by everyone and never given a second chance. And we thought Christians believed in forgiveness.

“The question is whether it sets a good or bad example.”

No doubt Beyer thinks bad. Particularly to children and who will all think it’s ok to do drugs just because Martina Hingis is on Strictly Come Dancing.

It appears the majority of contributors to the comments section in this story do not share Beyer’s views that Hingis should not be allowed on Stricley….

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1209127/Strictly-Come-Dancing-BBC-row-decision-include-disgraced-tennis-star-Martina-Hingis-line-up.html

One says….

“Whoever this Mr John Beyer is, he is totally out of order here. Whatever it is he does for a living, I suggest that he does his homework properly before making judgements. “

Indeed he should and he should remember the words he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Mediasnoops predicts they’ll soon by a que of enraged Daily Mail collomnist ready to tare into the “wet lefty Guardian reading liberals” of the BBC for letting Ms Hingis take part in Stricley……

Who will they let get on next? Gary Glitter? Osama Bin Laden?  

We wouldn’t put it past the peado loving terrorist hugging lefties of the BBC.

Lol!

Gov snub Mediawatch UK swearing petition

The government won’t start telling broadcasters what they can and cannot do. Mediawatch UK must be mightily pissed off but we are happy.

From Mediawatch UK:

Government responds to mediawatch-uk’s Stop Swearing on TV petition
The Government believes that it is important that we have high standards across our broadcasting sector particularly in public service broadcasting. However, it is a long-standing principle that the Government does not interfere in programme matters, either on arrangements for scheduling or on content, as it is important to maintain the principle of freedom of expression which political interference could undermine. 

For this reason, Ofcom, the BBC Trust and S4C are independent of the Government and are responsible for safeguarding the public interest in broadcasting. They set out the rules and guidance with which broadcasters must comply.  Within this framework, it is the broadcasters’ job to make judgements about what individual programmes should contain and the time at which they are broadcast.
No 10 Petitions Team 24/8/2009

Here’s a reminder of Mediawatch UK’s petion:

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/StopSwearingOnTV/

They ask the Prime Minister “to make urgent representation to the Broadcasting regulator, Ofcom, the broadcasting institutions operating in the UK and film regulators, asking them to stop the use of unnecessary swearing and bad language in their productions (including those available for downloading from websites)”

In other words they wanted the Prime Minister to tell broadcasters and film regulators to stop swearing in programmes and films.

Which is more or less asking the government to stick it’s nose into what TV broadcasters show and what film regulators allow to pass for consumption by the public.

But the gov aint gonna do that and will keep their noses out. Much to Mediawatch UK’s displeasure of course.

Good.

Mediawatch UK also wanted the government to interfer with downloadable content.

Given that the main issue over swearing is the offence it may cause to people surely there is no need for any enforced censorship of downloadable content because those that would be offended by swearing would not download content that includes swear words.

BBFC bans “sadistic” Japaneese horror film

Remember the Daily Mail’s Christopher Hart who asked “What does it take to get a film banned these days”?

 

No doubt the moral guardians are happy.

From the Daily Mail:

British censor bans sexually sadistic Japanese horror film in rare clampdown on ‘torture porn’

By Daily Mail Reporter
 19th August 2009

Film censors today took the unusual step of refusing to give a certificate to a sadistic horror movie.

Distributors of Japanese film Grotesque had hoped to be given an 18 certificate for the film, which includes scenes depicting torture such as amputation and eye-gouging.

But the British Board of Film Classification said the film featured sexual sadism for its own sake. It said that giving the film a rating would involve a ‘risk of harm’ to those viewing it.

Selling or supplying the film is now illegal.

Banned: Japanese horror movie Grotesque, the majority of which focuses on the assault, humiliation and torture of two victims, has been refused an 18 certificate

The BBFC rejects films only rarely, preferring to give advice about how appropriate cuts would achieve the preferred certificate.

The decision was taken by BBFC director David Cooke and senior colleagues.

The board said the majority of the film focused on the assault, humiliation and torture of two victims.

The main character takes them prisoner and abducts, restrains, strips and sexually assaults them before inflicting horrific injuries until they die.

Recent US movies including the Saw and Hostel franchises have been criticised for being little more than ‘torture porn’ revolving around the humiliation and sadistic persecution of its lead characters.

Mr Cooke said: ‘Unlike other recent torture-themed horror works, such as the Saw and Hostel series, Grotesque features minimal narrative or character development and presents the audience with little more than an unrelenting and escalating scenario of humiliation, brutality and sadism.

‘The chief pleasure on offer seems to be in the spectacle of sadism (including sexual sadism) for its own sake.

‘Rejecting a work outright is a serious matter and the board considered whether the issue could be dealt with through cuts.

‘However, given the unacceptable content featured throughout cutting the work is not a viable option in this case and the work is therefore refused a classification.’

The BBFC rates around 10,000 films for DVD release each year.

The last film which the BBFC rejected for an 18 certificate was the 2004 movie Murder Set Pieces, which was turned down earlier this year.

Until that, it had not refused an 18 rating since 2005 when the film Terrorists, Killers And Other Wackos – made up of real clips of execution and torture – was turned down.

Johnny Boy Beyer must be jumping for joy! In his final month as director of Mediawatch UK (oh we forgot to mention that he doesn’t step down till Septemeber) that BBFC finally ban a “sick twisted and morally corrupting” film.

Nice leaving present.

We can imagine the Daily Mail’s comment….

Finally those wet lefty liberals at the BBFC have seen sense and saved our society from sick corrupting violence sex and filth and have banned a film that will destroy our children and the very moral fibre of our nation.Let’s hope the BBFC carries on being righteous right-wingers like us and bans more sick filth for the good of our middle class morals.

Tee hee!

Liverpool health police set to ban smoking in under 18’s films

 

It’s ironic to hear the Daily Mail Tory brigade moaning about the “nanny state” and “thought police” when they are all in favour of local councils banning films full of explict sex and violence.

From the Daily Mail:

Children barred from seeing classic films over plans to impose 18 certificate for smoking

By Tim Shipman
13th August 2009

 

Under the proposals, both the original 1960’s cartoon and the 1996 movie version of 101 Dalmations could face a ban due to Cruella de Ville’s trademark cigarette holder

Children under 18 will be banned from watching films that depict characters smoking under plans being considered by council ‘thought police’.

An 18 certificate  -  usually reserved for movies with violent and sexual content  -  will be slapped on any film featuring smokers that fails to explain cigarettes are bad for you.

Such titles include Disney’s classic 101 Dalmatians cartoon, in which the evil Cruella de Vil waves a cigarette holder.

The ban will target new releases, but
could affect older films such as 101 Dalmatians and Disney’s Peter Pan, the Little Mermaid and Pinnocchio if they are reissued and reclassified.

Casablanca, Titanic and Lord of the Rings would be restricted to adults under the plans proposed for Liverpool.

One exception to the new rules will be movies which feature major historical characters who are known to be smokers. So any films with Winston Churchill brandishing his trademark cigar would not be affected.

But the only others to get the green light from Liverpool City Council will be those which provide a ‘clear and unambiguous portrayal of the dangers of smoking, other tobacco use, or second-hand smoke’, the council said.

The British Board of Film Classification is generally responsible for classifying films. But under the Licensing Act 2003, local councils have powers to classify or reclassify films to be exhibited in their areas. 

Iconic: The classic movie Casablanca, starring the late Humphrey Bogart, could be restricted to adult viewers as it fails to explain that cigarettes are bad for you

The guidance recommends that councils should not duplicate the work of the BBFC, but it does allow authorities to reclassify films if there are ‘good local reasons’.

Some councils used similar powers to ban Monty Python’s Life of Brian in 1979 for blasphemy.

The proposal has been made to the authority’s licensing and gambling committee by Liverpool Primary Care Trust, which demanded the changes on the grounds that29 per cent of Liverpudlians smoke  -  7 per cent higher than the national average  -  and 3,300 children in the city take up smoking every year.

The plans are now part of a consultation with residents being run by Liverpool’s Liberal Democrat council.

If they go ahead, cinemas and any other premises showing films would have to notify the council 21 days in advance if they intend to show films containing images of smoking.

Yesterday, Tory local government spokesman Bob Neill said: ‘This is a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

‘It is not the role of town halls to act as puritanical thought police, banning children from watching films like Lord of the Rings, 101 Dalmatians or Casablanca because they offend politically correct sensibilities.

‘Parents are most concerned about knife crime and violence being glamorised. Councils would be better focusing on tackling the supermarkets and newsagents which peddle alcohol and cigarettes to teenagers and kids.’

A spokesman for Liverpool City Council said: ‘No decision on whether to introduce the proposed policy will be made until the consultation period has closed and the responses have been analysed.

The final decision will rest with the elected members of the full City Council.

 

“It is not the role of town halls to act as puritanical thought police, banning children from watching films like Lord of the Rings, 101 Dalmatians or Casablanca because they offend politically correct sensibilities. “

Quite. But Tory MPs are forever trying to get films that offend their sensibilities banned so that nobody can see them.

“Parents are most concerned about knife crime and violence being glamorised.”

Which means town halls  should be banning films that ”glamourise” knife crime and violence right? And would that not be town halls acting as puritanical though police?

Ah but when those in power ban things that right-wing Tory land doesn’t like they are saving society from corruption!

When they ban things that right-wing Tory land doesn’t see a problem with it’s political correctness gone maaaaaaaaaaaad!

The Daily Mail and their Tory supporters and readers have a funny relationship with the “nanny state”. They are quite happy for it to act and ban and stop people from having things which they dissaprove of (such as violent video games, violent films and pornography) but not things which they think just offends “wet liberal lefties”.

When violent films and porn is banned it’s a righteous act of saving society from being dragged into the gutter of moral degredation!

When smoking in films is banned it’s the thought police and polticial correctness taking over.

Mediasnoops remains opposed to the banning of most things (provided they don’t cause other people harm) and thinks that’s the best way to be.

Double standards you won’t get here!

Music videos clothing rape blame bollox

This perfectly fits the view held by the right-wing press that young girls who are victims of sexual assault are to blame because of what they wear.

From the Daily Mail:

Music, videos and clothing are sexualising our children, warns rape centre boss

By James Tozer
12th August 2009

 

A leading rape expert has attacked the ‘increasing sexualisation of children’.

Suggestive clothing and explicit music videos are eroding society’s values, said Dr Catherine White, clinical director of the sexual assault referral centre at St Mary’s Hospital in Manchester.

It opened a special suite in 2006 for under-18s, expecting to see 250 a year, but that soon rose to 400.

Bad influence: Britney Spears was just 17 when she made this seductive music video for her hit single Hit Me Baby One More Time

Controversy: Murdered child beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey wearing adult clothes and make-up

Campaigners say girls are encouraged to copy provocative images and young males react by treating them as sex objects, putting girls more at risk of sexual assaults and domestic violence.

Dr White said parents had a key role to play. ‘There’s an increasing sexualisation of children. When you see a little girl wearing a T-shirt with a Playboy bunny, that’s wrong isn’t it? I’ve seen another that said “Porn star in the making”.

‘Music videos are extremely influential,’ she added.

There was outrage over Britney Spears’s video for Hit Me Baby One More Time, which featured her in seductive poses while wearing school uniform.

Dr White said the changing attitude to young girls had an effect on potential abusers, too. ‘I think it’s all subconscious and there’s a drip, drip, drip effect. All together it’s having an effect on values.

‘For the potential perpetrators, it’s about knowing what’s acceptable and what’s not acceptable.’

St Mary’s is Britain’s long-estestablished sexual assault referral centre. It opened in 1986. There are now 28 around the country, with eight more planned.

Earlier this year the Government launched a study into the issue, led by psychologist Dr Linda Papadopoulos.

She said she is looking at whether ‘there is a link between exposure to these images and boys’ expectations about acceptable sexual behaviour’.

 

“Campaigners say girls are encouraged to copy provocative images and young males react by treating them as sex objects, putting girls more at risk of sexual assaults and domestic violence. “

In other words we can’t blame young males if they rape and assault girls because those girls are copying “provocative” images.

If young girls are victims of sexual assault then they are someway to blame for wearing suggestive clothing.

Lovely.

“Dr White said parents had a key role to play. ‘There’s an increasing sexualisation of children. When you see a little girl wearing a T-shirt with a Playboy bunny, that’s wrong isn’t it? I’ve seen another that said “Porn star in the making”. “

From a parenting point of view yes it is wrong. But wearing such clothes does not mean that young girls are going to be victims of sexual assault and it certainly does not mean they are to blame if they are.

When moral guardians talk about parents having to stop the “sexualisation” of their children what they are hinting at is that parents are to blame if their children become victims of sexual assault or abuse.

It’s their fault if their children get assaulted or abused because of what they have allowed them to wear.

“Earlier this year the Government launched a study into the issue, led by psychologist Dr Linda Papadopoulos.

She said she is looking at whether ‘there is a link between exposure to these images and boys’ expectations about acceptable sexual behaviour’.”

Oh surprise fucking surprise!

The government is beginning to buy into this nasty misogynistic view that women and young girls have to take responsibility to stop themselves from being raped or sexually assaulted. They must stop dressing “provocatively” and stop “leading men on”, watch what they are drinking and where they are walking and going and who with.

By putting the onus on women to stop themselves from being raped or assaulted the government can cut funding to rape and sexual abuse support centres and reduce the police’s activity in hunting down rapists and abusers.

The government and the police can get out of taking responsibility for protecting women and young girls from violent men by blaming women and young girls who are their victims.

The blame the victim mentality goes down well with the popularist tabloid media and the government can win support for doing fuck all to protect women and young girls by blaming women, young girls and parents for rape and abuse and by blaming the entertainments industry for putting out suggestive videos.

Blaming the media and clothing may be popular and make for sensationalist attention grabbing tabloid headlines but it won’t stop women or young girls from being sexually assaulted or abused and it will just allow the government to pass the buck and not do what they are supposed to do and that is to protect women and young girls from sexual violence.

TV’s a turn off for over-65s and Beyer

Beyer’s been mightily premature in announcing his retirement as director of Mediawatch UK as he’s still around as the Daily Mail’s chief rent-a-quote.

So people over the age of 65 don’t like the swearing and violence that comes out of programmes that young people watch.

Can they not find something more to their tastes or is TV going to have to be censored in order to please the moaning old fogey mob?

From the Daily Mail:

Why TV is a massive turn-off for over-65s: They’re fed up with repeats, swearing and violence

By Liz Thomas
06th August 2009

 

 

Drugs, violence and gay kisses: EastEnders was one of the most complained-about programmes

Almost half of over-65s believe television has deteriorated in the past five years because of bad language, violence and the soaring number of repeats.

Research by media regulator Ofcom found that 46 per cent of older viewers think that content quality and the range of programmes that channels offer has worsened.

At the same time, more than a fifth of pensioners claimed that falling standards were the result of broadcasters screening more violence and bad language in their shows.

And of the 2,000 over-65s surveyed, the majority – 62 per cent – cited the steady rise in the number of repeats being screened on mainstream TV as a key reason for their frustration.

Last year, the five main channels broadcast 33,165 hours of original programming – a fall of 3 per cent from 2007 and a slump of 5.6 per cent from 2003.

Last year, BBC director-general Mark Thompson warned viewers that the need to cut costs would see a greater number of repeats across the corporation’s channels.

Nearly 10 per cent of BBC1 shows and more than 30 per cent of BBC2 programmes are now repeats.

Last month, ITV recorded the lowest ratings in its history, with just 16 per cent of viewers tuning in. Experts blamed the fall on the broadcaster’s mix of repeats and its growing reliance on reality shows.

ITV, which reported record losses of £2.73billion earlier this year, has already admitted it has increased the number of repeats it airs in order to save cash.

It plans to slash its programmes budget by £135million between now and the end of 2011, make fewer new shows and has said it will ‘opt for cheaper programming’.

Old episodes of hit dramas such as Midsomer Murders and A Touch Of Frost are being replayed to fill airtime. New episodes of Heartbeat, The Royal, and Wire in the Blood have all been axed, alongside a planned lavish adaptation of EM Forster’s novel, A Passage To India.

In the past year, complaints about bad language and violence have also soared, reflecting viewers’ frustration with modern programming.

In its annual report, released earlier this month, the BBC admitted that complaints have doubled in the past year to more than 260,000. It is now planning a crackdown on swearing after the 9pm watershed.

The corporation saw 45,000 Britons voice their anger over the Sachsgate affair, in which Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand made obscene phone calls to 72-year- old actor Andrew Sachs, and then broadcast the messages on Brand’s Radio 2 show.

Many also rang in following the furore over the BBC’s decision not to screen a charity appeal for Gaza. 

At the same time, there has been a stark increase in the number of complaints made about taste and decency on BBC shows.

Its flagship drama EastEnders was one of the most complained about programmes, after it screened scenes showing someone being drugged and buried alive, a boy of 13 being knifed by a gang and a gay kiss – all before the watershed.

There have also been complaints about comments and jokes made by highly paid stars such as Chris Moyles and John Barrowman.

On Channel 4, foul-mouthed chef Gordon Ramsay fell foul of Ofcom after his two-hour show Ramsay’s Great British Nightmare saw him swear 115 times in the first 40 minutes.

Despite his reputation for bad language, scores of viewers were amazed the programme had been broadcast uncut and made formal complaints.

John Beyer, director of lobby group Media Watch, said: ‘Ofcom’s findings show how strongly people feel about issues of taste, harm and offence.

‘Over the past few years we have seen TV audiences increasingly state their dissatisfaction with the broadcast output – and it seems no one is doing anything about it.

‘I am calling on Ofcom to take seriously their own research and the complaints, and show they are listening to viewers’ concerns.’ 

What we have here is older viewers and old age pensioners voicing their dislike for what’s on TV. And Beyer takes that as more justificaiton to call for Ofcom to further restrict and regulate broadcasting.

If older viewers and pensioners are unhappy with what’s on TV then the answer is for broadcasters to start making more programmes that will cater for the tastes of older viewers and pensioners not censor programmes watched and enjoyed by young viewers.

  

 

Mediasnoops has been away

Due to a family bereavment I’ve been away for a few days but will be back up and running very soon.

Thanks for waiting.