Daily Mail readers’ kids have porn on their mobile phones

Middle class children are looking at things they shouldn’t be looking at on their mobile phones.

But of course it’s not the fault of middle class parents it’s the fault of those “evil filthy corrupting” mobile phone companies.

From the Daily Mail:

Do you know what your child is REALLY watching on their mobile?

By Paul Bracchi and Tim Stewart
26th September 2009

 

 

 

Images like this are readily available on mobile phones owned by children

Phone companies are making millions from pornography available at the press of a button on children’s mobiles. And the first you’ll know about it is when you get the bill…

The video is called ‘Breast of British’, and ‘customers’ are invited to ‘tuck into tasty topless totty’. One of the stars is Page Three Girl Leilani. You can see her in the bath soaping her decolletage, stripping down to her G-String from her PVC dress, or parading in a studio while revealing her ’sexy secrets’.

‘I get turned on,’ she says, ‘by nice eyes, a fit body, and a good-looking lunchbox.’

‘My favourite position? That’s a bit cheeky! That is something the person I am with finds out. The best sex I have ever had was  -  hmm  -  that is my secret, but I will give you a clue. It was in a very hot place.’

Dozens of other titles are advertised under headings such as ‘Naughty UK’ and ‘Swedish Blondes’.

It says much about the times we live in that such material is considered almost innocent compared to other pornography now widely available on our TV screens and the internet. After all, it’s called ’soft porn’, isn’t it?

But how would you feel about your ten-year-old son watching Leilani on his mobile phone?

Thousands of youngsters across the country  -  in fact, almost any child who has a phone, which around 90 per cent of ten to 19-year-olds do  -  automatically has unrestricted access to these kind of images. And the terrifying thing is that most of their parents won’t have a clue.

These children do not have to lie about their age to view or download it. There are no barriers or blocks of any kind. No questions asked. It’s there on their phones already. They don’t even have to surf the internet to find it.

Leilani and her friends come courtesy of network operator ‘3′. Bring up the menu on your son or daughter’s 3 phone and see for yourself. Your children are probably aware of what’s there already. 

On the list of options, which includes ‘games and puzzles’, ‘ Xfactor clips’, ‘Facebook’ and Music, is one called ‘Hot Candy’. Click on ‘Hot Candy’ and videos of Leilani and co can be downloaded for £1.49 each. 

Children do not have to lie about their age to view or download ’soft porn’ images

It’s the equivalent, you could argue, of the old supermarket trick of displaying sweets by the check out. Only pornography is considerably more pernicious than ‘pick ‘n’ mix’.

Does your child have an Orange phone? Scroll down the Orange Home Page. There is a link, next to ‘Yummie Sweets’ and ‘Muppets’, which is illustrated by a woman’s cleavage. It says: ‘More Fun Stuff!’ Behind the icon are images depicting lesbian foreplay, sado-masochism and bondage.

Images available on the Vodafone network, meanwhile, come under such categories as ‘New Buxom Beauties’ and ‘Hot and Sweaty’, and so on.

Much of this pornography is available on both contract phones and pay-as-you go phones, which are most popular with children.

Scandal is an overused word. But it’s difficult to find another one to describe the findings of our investigation  -  five years after the mobile phone industry unveiled a code of conduct in a blaze of publicity aimed, so we were told, at protecting children.

The opposite is true. The phone companies themselves, we find, are actually peddling porn to youngsters.

Only ‘adult content’  -  material deemed suitable for 18-year-olds and over  -  is subject to age verification restrictions.

But scores of videos on the 3 network  -  ‘Electra playing on her bed all alone’, for example  -  are not classified as ‘adult content’. No adult content, no restrictions. Just a fat profit for companies such as 3, which admits that the ‘margins around porn are quite high’. 

Images depict sado-masochism and bondage

So who decides what constitutes ‘adult content’? A group called the Independent Mobile Classification Body (IMCB), set up in 2004. Independent? Read the small print in the IMCB’s mission statement. It’s funded by the mobile phone operators.

It tries, it claims, to follow the example of the British Board of Film Classification.

Content, according to the IMCB, which shows ‘real or simulated sexual intercourse’ or the ‘depiction of sexual activity involving devices such as sex toys, is given an 18 rating. (If that’s the case, why does that Electra video not have an 18 rating?)

What they seem to be saying is that almost anything else is ’suitable’ for children.

A question, then, for IMCB chairman Sir Alistair Graham and fellow board members: when was the last time you took your children or grandchildren to a certificate U film which invited the audience to ‘tuck into tasty topless totty’?

Even some of the safeguards supposed to stop youngsters accessing 18-plus material, we discovered, are woefully inadequate or non-existent.

The potential dangers posed by computers are well known to every parent. The dangers posed by mobile phones much less so. Yet the repercussions are being felt at schools and homes all over the country.

The National Association of Head Teachers says mobile phone pornography in schools is now ‘widespread and very worrying’. 

The safeguards are virtually non-existent

At one state school in Suffolk, we have discovered, about four phones a day containing obscene images are confiscated. This is not an isolated example, but part of a disturbing trend reinforced by research for a recent TV programme which suggested the average teenager watches 90 minutes of pornography a week either on their phones or on the internet.

What most parents would be shocked to learn, however, is that some of the biggest network operators have contracts in place with porn companies or their intermediaries.

The Vodaphone ‘porn chain’ begins at a glossy building in North Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, with a giant bronze rabbit head in the two-storey reception. This is the headquarters of Playboy Enterprises Inc. Playboy distributes videos and photographs to outlets all over the world.

In February, it announced an international distribution deal for ‘mobile content’ with a company near Cambridge called FoneStarz.

Fonestarz, which had a £5 million turnover in 2007, according to the latest available accounts, supplies videos, animation, pictures and ring-tones to a number of companies.

The firm’s databank of 20,000 images and clips includes soft core  -  and hard core  -  porn.

Pornographic images are available on both contract phones and pay-as-you-go phones

One of its customers is Vodafone, one of the world’s biggest network operators, with nearly 18 million subscribers in Britain alone. Other operators have similar arrangements in place.

For £2.45, anyone can download pictures and videos from Vodafone Live on their handsets. In one 20-second film, Jet Ski Hotty, a blonde in her 20s strips off and rubs cream onto herself. Various other girls are seen writhing in the shower and on beds.

Libby Pritchard, who is head of corporate reputation and communication for Vodaphone, has a son aged 11. ‘He doesn’t have a mobile,’ she said. ‘But if he did and he saw these images then I’d think that if he didn’t see them on the phone he’d only see them elsewhere. They are available in newspapers, magazines and on the internet.’

Was she really speaking as a mother  -  or a PR? Either way, how many other parents would share such a laissez-faire approach?

Vodafone says there is an automatic bar on access to 18-plus material which can be lifted only if customers can prove they are over 18 by, for example, paying a £1 fee using a credit card.

On the Vodafone handset we tested, there was no such bar.

A similar adult bar on Orange (which has nearly 17 million customers in Britain) was ‘released’ with a call to the customer services department. The account password was all that was required, but no proof of age.

True, account holders have to be at least 18 in the first place. But many families take out several phones for their children under one name. How was Orange to know that our reporter was not under 18?

O2 (which has nearly 22 million users) said all customers ‘have an option to apply for our free parental control service’ on their children’s phone, which restricts browsing to content suitable for 12 or under. In other words, you have to opt in, not out.

The same policy applies to the firm’s pay-as-you-go phones. Many pay-as-you-go customers are children, which means they can access X-rated websites  -  if they don’t ask for the ‘parental control service’. Now that’s what you might call a loophole. 

One 11-year-old boy ran up a bill totalling £500

King Edward VI School in Bury St Edmunds caters for 1,400 pupils aged between 13 and 18. The vast majority, says deputy head Wynn Rees, have watched pornography  -  many on mobile phones  -  which has left students with a distorted view of sex.

Mr Rees says he has been shocked by some of the images found on confiscated phones. One film (charmingly called ‘Claire in her bedroom. At last, a 14-year-old girl who isn’t frigid’) was found on at least six phones.

‘Pupils are absolutely obsessed with their phones,’ said Mr Rees. ‘They can’t think of anything worse than having it confiscated. Parents are always called in to the school when we find something like this, and they are usually mortified.’

Kathy Young, a 44-year-old teacher, certainly was. She discovered that her 11-year-old son Alex had run up a £500 bill after viewing a pornographic website on his Virgin mobile.

‘The first I knew about it was when Alex was sent a text telling him he was over his credit limit. I checked my bank account and was astounded to see the amount that had been deducted,’ Kathy explained.

‘Virgin were unsympathetic. They said it was my responsibility to check what Alex was doing with his phone.

‘In an ideal world I would, but the whole point of Alex having a phone is that we can stay in touch during the day because I work full-time. It’s why most parents want their children to have phones.’

A Virgin spokesman said: ‘While Virgin Media has confirmed these charges are valid, as a gesture of goodwill, the company has cancelled over half the charges and will assist Mrs Young in reclaiming additional costs from the premium rate provider (which provided the pornography Alex viewed) in question.’

Kathy says: ‘Alex seems fine, but I am worried about what he might have seen. He told me he had seen a few topless ladies. That’s bad enough, but I can only hope that is all he really saw.’

Of course, children across the country are seeing much more. A good deal of it, like that available on the Orange, Vodafone and 3 networks, is totally unrestricted.

Can any of the executives of these companies  -  many of whom are parents themselves  -  really defend their readiness to pump out this pornography to a generation of impressionable youngsters  -  and all at a handsome profit?

 

“But how would you feel about your ten-year-old son watching Leilani on his mobile phone?”

Oh God absoloutly outraged! The lad will no doubt grow up to become a serial rapist because he’s been watching Leilani on his mobile phone!

Here’s a more sensible response…

Take the phone off him, tell him he’s too young to be looking at that kind of thing and tell him maybe when he’s older he can watch brainless supermodels jiggliong about the place.

“Kathy Young, a 44-year-old teacher, certainly was. She discovered that her 11-year-old son Alex had run up a £500 bill after viewing a pornographic website on his Virgin mobile. “

What kind of parent let’s their 11 year old son look at porn and run up a £500 bill  mobile phone?

Is it any wonder society is going down the gutter with scum parents like these letting their kids look at porn on their mobile phones?

Call social services and have him taken into care!

Oh no wait a minute hold on….

This is a nice respectable MIDDLE CLASS mother. Oh well she obviously had completly no idea about what her son was looking at and it isn’t her fault but those evil and nasty filthy mobile phone companies who peddled porn at her son.

“Alex seems fine, but I am worried about what he might have seen. He told me he had seen a few topless ladies. That’s bad enough, but I can only hope that is all he really saw.’ “

Yeee gadz! He saw a few topless ladies! He seems fine? Oh no his very soul is corrupted. A good excorcism is called for!

“At one state school in Suffolk, we have discovered, about four phones a day containing obscene images are confiscated.”

One state in school in Suffolk confiscating four phones a day containing obscene images apparently shows how kids are being bombared left right and centre with porn everyday?

“Thousands of youngsters across the country  -  in fact, almost any child who has a phone, which around 90 per cent of ten to 19-year-olds do  -  automatically has unrestricted access to these kind of images. And the terrifying thing is that most of their parents won’t have a clue. “

Yes it’s absoloutly terrifying. As if middle class parents haven’t got enough to worry about what with peadophiles, illegal immigrants and rabid Muslim extremists lurking around every corner. They now need to have sleepless nights about the thought that their kids might be looking at porn on their mobiles.

The Daily Mail really wants their readers to be terrified and in a permanent state of panic that everything and everyone is trying to corrupt their children and destroy their morals.

This is a case of children looking at things which they shouldn’t. It’s not right and it should be stopped but it doesn’t warrent the kind of scaremongering panic inducing bollox that the Daily Mail spews.

And it certainly doesn’t represent the very destruction of the fabric of children’s morals.

Get a fucking life!

BNP On Question Time: Union plans protest

Mediasnoops plans to watch the furore about Nick Griffin’s appearence on Question Time closely.

It seems the broadcasting unions believe that the only way to stop the BNP is through attempted censorship.

From The Express:

UNION PLANS BNP QUESTION TIME DEMO

 

Union Bectu have threatened protests if BNP leader Nick Griffin appears on Question Time

Monday September 28,2009

The TV technicians’ union has attacked the BBC’s decision to invite BNP leader Nick Griffin on to Question Time and pledged to join a demonstration against the recording of the programme.

Bectu said it would support any of its members who refused to work on the programme, which will be transmitted on October 22.

General secretary Gerry Morrissey said: “We believe there should be no media coverage of the BNP and I have raised this issue with the director general, Mark Thompson.

“He said they have been invited on to the programme because they have won elections, but we strongly disagree.

“We will be arranging a demonstration and lobby outside the Question Time studios and we will be working with anti-fascist groups to ensure there is a significant turn out.”

 

“We believe there should be no media coverage of the BNP”

So the media should just pretend the BNP does not exist then? No coverage of the BNP at all? Does that include critical coverage? What about the programme that went undercover at BNP meetings and exposed the racism of their members?

The stick your fingures in your ears and hope they go away attitude of anti-fascists groups and trade unions really isn’t helping.

“Bectu said it would support any of its members who refused to work on the programme.”

And Bectua should question whether opposing the BNP revolves around trying to prevent programmes being broadcast and viewers seeing them.

Viewers themselves haven’t been asked what they think about Griffin appearing on Question Time.

All we are getting is the views of anti-fascist groups, socialists and trade unions as if they represent the views of the entire population on whether Griffin should be permitted onto the programme.

And the anti-fascist groups and trade unions are taking the “we know what’s good for you” moral high ground by talking about trying to stop the broadcast going ahead which will result in viewers not being able to see the programme.

Anti-fascists and in particular media trade unions really need to ask themsevles whether being opposed to fascism and racism is about trying to dictate what TV viewers can and cannot see.

 

Venuzelan minister threatens cable stations who show Family Guy

Humourless miserydom continues in countries ruled by oppressive dictartorial regiemes. From the BBC: Venezuela bans Family Guy cartoon

Cable stations which flout the ban face fines Authorities in Venezuela say they will punish TV stations if they continue to broadcast episodes of cult US animation Family Guy. Justice Minister Tareck El Aissami says the show should be banned because it promotes the use of marijuana. He took exception to a recent episode in which one character – Brian, a talking dog – started a campaign to legalise the drug. Cable stations which refuse to dump the show would be fined, El Aissami said. It is not the first time the government of President Hugo Chavez has reacted badly to a cartoon. Last year, The Simpsons was deemed unsuitable for children after officials decided it flouted regulations prohibiting “messages that go against the whole education of boys, girls and adolescents”. One local station was threatened with financial sanctions for broadcasting the adventures of the dysfunctional family in an early morning slot. Televen avoided the fine by pulling the show and replacing it with Baywatch. However, they were still forced to show public service films as an apology. Venezuelan TV is known for filling its schedules with re-runs of old US series and Latin American soap operas. It also includes a talk show hosted by the country’s president, Hugo Chavez. New regulations for cable TV in the country could also see cable channels forced to carry Chavez’s frequent speeches. “Cable stations which refuse to dump the show would be fined, El Aissami said. “   “Cable stations which refuse to dump the show would be fined, El Aissami said. “ The cable stations should tell the authorities would would fine them for showing Family Guy to bog of. But they would be too scared! “He took exception to a recent episode in which one character – Brian, a talking dog – started a campaign to legalise the drug. “ So as usual it’s a politician trying to ban something just because he doesn’t like it and takes offence towards it. It’s like that the world over.

BBC “bans” gypsy comedy sketch…..it’s PC GONE MADDDDDDDDD say the Daily Mail

In fact they haven’t banned anything. If you read the article clearly the BBC did not ban the sketch or force Armgstrong and Miller to change it at all.

Even if theyhad banned the sketch the hypocrisy of the Daily Mail in crowing about it would be blindingly obvious as they have been one of the right-wing Tory rags crusading against “offence” and “filth” on TV ever since the Brand/Ross prank call outrage (which they lead the campaign against) yet scream about “political correctness” when the BBC bans something which they and their readers don’t have a problem with.

From the Daily Mail:

BBC bans comedians from using word gipsy in sketch.. because it’s ‘racist’

By Paul Revoir
 24th September 2009

The BBC has stepped in to stop the word ‘gipsies’ being used in a TV comedy sketch for fear of being seen as racist.

Ben Miller, one half of the comedy duo Armstrong and Miller, said he had a ‘debate’ with TV bosses over plans to use the word in a sketch poking fun at racist attitudes in Britain in the 1970s.

Last night, after Miller’s claims appeared in the latest issue of FHM magazine, it appeared the BBC had won the day.

Trying to see the funny side: Ben Miller (front) and Alexander Armstrong were persuaded not to use the word ‘gipsy’ in a comedy sketch

 

Miller told the Daily Mail he and partner Alexander Armstrong had now dropped plans to use the word ‘gipsies’ in the sketch.

After discussions they had decided to use a different word so that the target of the joke was clearer and it was funnier, he said.

Miller told the November issue of FHM: ‘We’re having a debate at the moment with the BBC over whether we can say gipsies, because they say gipsies is a racist term, and you think “Yes it is but that’s the point that we’re making, that we were more racist in the 70s than we are now”.’

But following a request to explain his comments further, the comedian appears to have backed down.

He said: ‘We wanted to make fun of racist public information films from the Seventies, and considered using the word “gipsy” in that context.  

‘After discussing the issue both amongst ourselves and with the BBC, we decided to use a different word, so that the target (racism) was clearer and the joke was funnier.

‘These discussions are a normal, healthy part of writing a comedy show and help to make sure that we end up with something we can all have a ruddy good laugh at.”

The Armstrong and Miller Show returns to BBC1 next month.

A BBC spokesman said: ‘There are no banned words on the BBC; ‘gipsy’ isn’t a banned word.

‘This wasn’t about the word itself, but about the sketch as a whole and the potential to cause offence. As with all comedy, it’s about context, and in this particular case we felt there were less offensive ways of making the same joke.’

The BBC has already faced criticism from gipsy and traveller activists over an episode of children’s TV programme The Basil Brush Show.

A member of the public complained to police about a scene showing a gipsy  woman trying to sell Basil Brush heather and pegs. The BBC was accused of stereotyping negative views of gipsies .

There was also anger in 2008 when the BBC silenced Rokker Radio, a show started in 2006 and aimed at gipsy and traveller communities.

Last night Gill Brown of the London Gypsy and Traveller Unit said: ‘Romany gipsies are an ethnic group so it depends on the way you are using it. If you use it in the correct context it is not racist.

‘However it can still be used as a slur and that is racist. But I don’t know how Ben Miller was using it.’

She added: ‘The word was used in a very racist and discriminatory way for many years and then what happened was that the term moved to traveller to be all encompassing. So anybody that could be described as a traveller or a gipsy became a traveller.’

The Daily Mail portrays this as the “lefty PC liberals” of the BBC coming down like a tun of bricks on Armstrong and Miller and banning their sketch because is uses the word gypsy.

But if you read the following…

“Ben Miller, one half of the comedy duo Armstrong and Miller, said he had a ‘debate’ with TV bosses over plans to use the word in a sketch poking fun at racist attitudes in Britain in the 1970s.”

You will see that all that happened was that Armstrong and Miller had a debate with the BBC bosses over their plans to use the word in the sketch.

Those that just see the first few lines of the story will think the BBC banned the sketch outright without any discussion with the comedians. That is of course what the Daily Mail want people to think.

The Mail also tries to make out that the BBC forced the comedians to drop the sketch.

But….

“After discussing the issue both amongst ourselves and with the BBC, we decided to use a different word, so that the target (racism) was clearer and the joke was funnier. “

There was a discussion and both parties decided to use a different word. Just how that represents the BBC banning anything is something the Daily Mail needs to explain.

No doubt there will be indignant articles from the Mail’s collomnists droning on about how the BBC is terrified of offending gypsys and other minorities but doesn’t see anything wrong with offending the elderley, Tory voters, Christians etc etc blah blah bore bore!

Already some readers on the comments page of their report on this story are coming out with some priceless Daily Mail esque gems.

Such as Andy from Cheshire who says…

“We must be careful not to offend any race or religion, or group of people,….. with the exception of the white indiginous people of the uk of course. I feel offended by most of the things happening at the moment, but of coure that doesn’t matter, does it!”

Oh yes that big lefty liberal conspiracy to offend white British people but to avoid offending minorities. Can’t forget about that can we!

And Nigel from Summerset says so intelligently…

“When oh when are we going to have someone with half a brain running the BBC? Gipsies are not a race, any more than beggars, buskers or any other group of itinerant misfits! Most of the so called ‘travellers are not even Romanies at all, just layabouts!”

Give this guy a brain someone!

But there is a sane voice, in Andrew from Durham…

“Maybe the BBC didn’t want to give the Mail any ammunition for another crusade ala Ross/Brand.”

Yes indeed. Because it’s the Daily who created the situation where the BBC is now scared shitless of offending anyone anywhere with the tidal wave of moral uproar that they engineered over the Brand/Ross/Sachs affair.

But remember the Daily Mail isn’t going to get into the same lather of moral uproar over something “racist” or potentially “racist” because racism isn’t something they and their readers are bothered about when it comes to broadcasting and offence.

Something could be blatently racist but if it was banned, and in particular banned by the BBC the Daily Mail would say it’s “political correctness gone mad” and label the BBC as a bunch of namby pamby liberals who are scared of offending ethnic minorites.

Show something full of racism and bigotory and it will escape the Daily Mail’s offence radar. But show something with a bit of swearing or some nudity and they will be screaming with outrage until their heads explode!

And the Mail is very selective about who it thinks can and cannot be offended….

The Mail gets outraged over a comedian making fun of the Queen but doesn’t see a problem with Carol Thatcher saying that a black tennis player looks like a “golliwog”.

In the eyes of the Daily Mail offending the Queen should be a sackable offence. But offending black people and other minorities is ok and anyone who says different is a wet pc liberal blah blah!

For the record Mediasnoops doesn’t believe using the word gypsy in the kind of way that Armgstrong and Miller were intending to use it was racist.

But the BBC didn’t ban anything and this just shows up the hypocrisy and double standards of the Daily Mail and their readers.

Mediawatch UK Announce New Director

We’ve never heard of her.

From Mediawatch UK:

NEW DIRECTOR FOR MEDIAWATCH-UK 

mediawatch-uk, the campaigning organisation which fights for decency and standards in the media, announced today that it has appointed Vivienne Pattison as its new Director.

Vivienne, previously an Account Director at Midas Public Relations, will be building on the work of her predecessors and providing an independent voice for those concerned about taste and decency issues.  She will ensure that mediawatch-uk maintains its reputation for principled protest, informed comment and reliable research

mediawatch-uk monitors broadcast output, publishes reports about programme content and responds to Government and other consultations on broadcasting policy, as well as arguing for parliamentary accountability for broadcasters and greater public involvement in broadcasting policy issues. mediawatch-uk plays an important role in promoting media literacy and in initiating discussion and debate.

mediawatch-uk Acting Chairman, John Milton Whatmore said: “I am in no doubt that in a media environment, the technology of which is changing faster than ever before, the need for mediawatch-uk is more apparent than at anytime during the last 50 years.  I believe that, in Vivienne Pattison, mediawatch-uk has the person to meet the challenges of ensuring that the Media is responsible for what it produces, and in safeguarding what the general public can reasonably expect from such sources”.

Vivienne Pattison said “mediawatch-uk performs a vital role in creating good media values and seeking to protect the young and vulnerable from offensive and harmful material.  Gordon Brown has expressed personal concern about the violence and pornography that children and young people are easily able to access and I am looking forward to working with government and regulators to press for better standards in broadcasting.”

Outgoing mediawatch-uk Director, John Beyer said: “I am delighted that Vivienne has taken over the role of Director.  It remains essential that there is an effective voice speaking up for the viewer and listener in the digital age.  I believe that Ofcom is failing to represent the interests of consumers and that is why mediawatch-uk will remain a crucial organisation in the future.”

mediawatch-uk News Release 23 September 2009

“She will ensure that mediawatch-uk maintains its reputation for principled protest, informed comment and reliable research.”

Reputation for illinformed comment based on what we read in the Daily Mail. Lol!

“and in safeguarding what the general public can reasonably expect from such sources”.

Safeguarding that they should expect to see nothing that Mediawatch UK don’t think they should see.

Vivine really blows Mediawatch UK’s trumpet…

“mediawatch-uk performs a vital role in creating good media values.”

No it doesn’t.

 ”I am in no doubt that in a media environment, the technology of which is changing faster than ever before, the need for mediawatch-uk is more apparent than at anytime during the last 50 years. ”

No it’s not.

“and seeking to protect the young and vulnerable from offensive and harmful material.”

Ah yes the vulnerable. The vulnerable who are unable to decide for themselves what is and is not good for them to see and apparently need Mediawatch UK to decide for them.

Let’s do a bit of that Between The Lines game from Mock The Week…..

 ”I am looking forward to working with government and regulators to press for better standards in broadcasting.”

I am looking forward to working with government and regulators to press for anything that Mediawatch UK deams offensive and immoral to be banned.

” I believe that Ofcom is failing to represent the interests of consumers.”

I believe that Ofcom is failing to ban things that Mediawatch UK and their army of middle England supporters don’t like.

(The interests of consumers is far wider than just those who sympathise with the views of Mediawatch UK)

Well we wish her luck. She has a hard act to follow and if she can rack up as many rent-a-qu0tes in the Daily Mail as Beyer did she will do well. Lol!

 

 

 

 

Nigerian minister doesn’t like District 9….so she wants Nigerians to be stopped from seeing it

She’s offended by it (although we don’t know if she’s even seen it) so she wants cinemas not to show it so that Nigerian movie goers cannot see it. From the BBC: Nigeria ‘offended’ by sci-fi film

The film depicts aliens living in a South African shanty town Nigeria’s government is asking cinemas to stop showing a science fiction film, District Nine, that it says denigrates the country’s image. Information Minister Dora Akunyili told the BBC’s Network Africa programme that she had asked the makers of the film, Sony, for an apology. She says the film portrays Nigerians as cannibals, criminals and prostitutes. An actor from the film said that it was not just Nigerians who were portrayed as villains. The Malawian actor, Eugene Khumbanyiwa, plays a gang leader with the nickname of Obasanjo, also the surname of former Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo. The film is about alien refugees who set up home in a South African shanty town called District Nine. It is a loose allegory about apartheid and recent violence by South Africans against foreigners. It’s not like Nigerians do eat aliens Actor Eugene Khumbanyiwa Ms Akunyili said it clearly took aim at Nigerians. “We feel very bad about this because the film clearly denigrated Nigeria’s image by portraying us as if we are cannibals, we are criminals,” she said. “The name our former president was clearly spelt out as the head of the criminal gang and our ladies shown like prostitutes sleeping with extra-terrestrial beings.”   Soweto residents tell Jonah Fisher how the District 9 filmmakers hired them ‘It’s a story’ The information minister said she had ordered the Nigerian film and video censors’ board to ask all cinemas to stop showing the film and to confiscate it. “I have also formally written to Sony Pictures Entertainment, the company that produced this film, demanding an unconditional apology for this unwarranted attack on Nigeria’s image,” she added. She also said she had asked them to review the film with a view to remove “all offending portions that injured our image as a nation”. Ms Akunyili said said Nigeria was now hitting back with a policy of “rebranding”, after allowing the international community to define the country based on the behaviour of “[a] few criminals”. She said that Nigeria’s Nollywood film industry was also being pressed to help portray Nigeria in a better light. But Mr Khumbanyiwa said Nigerians in the cast did not seem worried by the portrayal of their country. He suggested that the film, which depicts people wanting to eat aliens to gain the superhuman powers, should not be taken too literally. “It’s a story, you know,” he said. “It’s not like Nigerians do eat aliens. Aliens don’t even exist in the first place.”   “The information minister said she had ordered the Nigerian film and video censors’ board to ask all cinemas to stop showing the film and to confiscate it” She ordered the film and censors board to ask cinemas to stop showing the film and to confiscate it just because SHE doesn’t like it and because SHE finds it offensive. So Nigerian film goers must be denied from seeing one of this year’s biggest sci-fi blockbusters because this minister doesn’t like it. Nigerians should be free to decide for themselves whether this film portrays them in a negative light and if they feel it does they can register their protest with the film makers. But this woman isn’t even giving them the chance to do that she’s telling them it portrays them in a negative light and they should be stopped from seeing it. “We feel very bad about this because the film clearly denigrated Nigeria’s image by portraying us as if we are cannibals, we are criminals,” And acting like fascist censors will do your country’s image a world of good won’t it!

BNP on Question Time and Socialist Censors

Anti-racist groups believe that the British TV viewing public is so thick and illeducated that they will be brainwashed into becoming violent racist thugs if they are allowed to hear his views.

Therefore they must be protected for them for their own good.

Sometimes the political Left can be just as self-righteous holier than thou and censorious as the Right.

From the Socialist Worker:

Don’t let fascist BNP on BBC’s Question Time

The fascist British National Party (BNP) is attempting to capitalise on the two seats it took in the European elections in June by grabbing as much free publicity as possible. And, outrageously, the BBC is helping it.

The corporation last week invited the party onto its flagship debate show Question Time – saying that the BNP has “electoral support at a national level” and so has to be allowed on to preserve “impartiality”.

This would give the BNP the biggest platform it has ever had and allow it to spew its message of hate out to millions.

But anti-fascists are determined to stop them.

They aim to surround the BBC studios where the programme will be recorded and prevent the show from being broadcast.

Campaigners will also appeal to media workers at the BBC to refuse to co-operate with work on the programme.

Appearing on Question Time will allow the BNP to pose as a normal political party. But it is anything but. The BNP is a Nazi party that aims to use democratic freedoms today, in order to deny them to their opponents tomorrow.

BNP leader Nick Griffin is a convicted Jew-hating, Holocaust denier who says he wants to build an organisation that can “defend rights for whites” with “well-directed boots and fists”.

Debate

The futility of calls to debate the fascist right can be seen in the recent anti-Islamic protests by the English Defence League. These streetfighting thugs are touring areas with large ethnic minority populations, chanting, “We hate Muslims.”

Among them are leading members of the BNP. Are we really supposed to discuss and debate with them as if they were a normal part of British society? Of course not.

The only way to remove the cancer of Nazism is to deny it the chance to be a vehicle for the growing anger at the economic crisis. That means we must starve it of the publicity it craves.

 

“They aim to surround the BBC studios where the programme will be recorded and prevent the show from being broadcast.”

Anti-fascists need to start asking themselves if being anti-fascist is all about trying to enforce censorship and stop things from being said, shown and talked about.

Now socialists are trying to dictate what can and cannot be shown on TV and seen by viewers. Perhaps they might want to have a word with Mediawatch UK.

How excactly are they going to stop the show from being broadcast?

What will they do if they can’t stop it from being broadcast?

Surely the only thing to do would be to go to every home in Britain and take their TV and smash it up so they can’t watch Nick Griffin on Question Time.

“That means we must starve it of the publicity it craves.”

Actually it’s the anti-fascists and anti-racists who are giving Nazis and the BNP publicity, by constantly talking them up as some great threat to this country and telling us all how we are at risk of decending into a fascist Nazi state.

Mediasnoops maintains that the ONLY way to defeat the BNP and other racists is debate and by constructing well though out arguments against their racist views and beliefs.

That instead of standing around shouting slogans through megaphones, waving placards and looking very angry and disgusted anti-fascis/racists should actually debunk the myths and lies that come out of groups like the BNP.

Time to wake up to the fact that No Platform is NO HOPE.

Turtle for Mediawatch UK director?

It’s possbile, although him being quoted in this story doesn’t mean it’s gonna
happen.

From Mediawatch UK:

UK to Follow US Lead by Allowing Product Placement on Television
Product placement is rife in film, British television programmes have long had
to make up fictional products, such as pints of Newton & Ridley in Coronation
Street’s Rovers Return, or simply tape over the logos of real ones.

That is all likely to change this week after a decision that is expected to
allow commercial broadcasters to show sponsored products for the first time.The
move will be a boon for the broadcasters, who have been struggling to deal with
falls in advertising revenue.

Some experts believe deals could raise as much as £125m annually for the
industry, although publicly funded organisations such as the BBC will remain
exempt. The ban will also stay in place for certain programmes, including shows
aimed at children.

Dave Turtle, spokesman for mediawatch-uk, which campaigns for socially
responsible broadcasting, said: “We shouldn’t be using television programmes to
push a product. We’re not saying no to all product placement, but broadcasters
need to be responsible about which audiences they’re selling to and what.
Self-regulation isn’t working. Do we really want to go down the American road
where you’re bombarded constantly?”
Guardian 14/9/2009

Our money is on David Turtle. But who can ever truley replace the reactionary
quick off the mark to give an outraged quote to the Daily Mail Beyer?

Beyer’s swearing swansong

 

Notice the big slap on the back for the Telegraph from Beyer. He really does appreciate them giving his pressure group a leg up the free publicity ladder.

Lol.

From The Telegraph:

Vulgar Britain: Rise in swearing on TV

Swearing on television is more frequent than ever despite promises of a clampdown following last year’s Jonathan Ross scandal, an investigation by The Sunday Telegraph has found.

By Ian Johnston, Stephanie Plentl and James Symonds
Published: 9:00PM BST 12 Sep 2009

In 25 post-watershed programmes monitored last week, serious expletives – the f-word, ’s***’ and ‘p***’ – were used a total of 155 times. When a similar monitoring exercise was carried out a year ago, the words were used only 127 times.

Campaigners said the findings showed that broadcasters had ignored public concerns about the level of bad language on television.

Mediawatch, the pressure group, said that while they had “made all the right noises, they haven’t actually done anything”.

Last October this newspaper launched the Vulgar Britain campaign to highlight bad language on the airwaves.

At the same time there was a public outcry after BBC Radio 2 broadcast a tape of Russell Brand, the comedian, and Jonathan Ross, the presenter, leaving a series of offensive messages on the telephone answering machine of Andrew Sachs, the 78-year-old actor.

The following month, Jana Bennett, director of BBC Vision, promised a reduction in swearing, saying: “We must not use the label “risk-taking” just to clear anything that anyone wants to say … There will be less effing, but the blinding seems to be OK.”

Michael Grade, executive chairman of ITV, added that use of the f-word had become “unrestrained” and warned: “Not enough consideration is given to a very large section of the audience who don’t want to hear such words.”

Of the programmes monitored last week, the one with the most swearing was Ramsay’s Kitchen Nightmares USA, in which the f-word was used 63 times and other serious expletives 18 times.

There were a total of 103 swear words used, equivalent to one every 47 seconds.

Other major offenders were the film Stripes starring Bill Murray on Channel 5, which had 14 uses of serious expletives, BBC1’s Traffic Cops, with 12, and BBC2’s The Last Days of Lehman Brothers, with 11.

John Beyer, the director of Mediawatch-UK, said: “Broadcasters are not really responding to the public concern about swearing on television.

“What happened last year was largely thanks to The Sunday Telegraph. A lot of the comments made by Michael Grade and Jana Bennet were responding to the public concern there was.

“What your results show is broadcasters have paid lip service, made all the right noises, but they haven’t actually done anything to reduce the level of swearing.”

He accused the Government and industry regulator Ofcom of ignoring the situation.

“With the government not prepared to intervene and with Ofcom failing to really enforce its code on swearing, there’s little that an ordinary viewer, who continues to be offended by this language, can do,” Mr Beyer said.

“I just think it’s a situation that’s out of control.”

Ofcom has never fined a broadcaster for excessive swearing after the watershed.

It found Channel 4 was in breach of the broadcasting code in relation to an episode of Ramsay’s Great British Nightmare shown in January this year, but no sanction was imposed.

In the event of “serious, repeated, deliberate and/or reckless” breaches, Channel 4 could face a fine of up to five per cent of advertising revenue.

A spokesman for the regulator said: “We regularly carry out research on viewers’ attitudes, including to swearing on TV and radio. The results have not varied much in recent years.

“Most people on balance are reasonably satisfied about the amount of swearing on TV and radio, with older viewers and listeners more concerned and younger ones less so.”

Channel 4 defended the use of swear words, saying it had “an alternative public service remit and at times will transmit content of a stronger nature which may not appeal to all viewers” and that people knew what to expect from notoriously foul-mouthed chef Gordon Ramsay.

A spokesman for the channel said: “Channel 4 strives to reflect social reality and strong language is part of that reality; potentially offensive language can feature when scheduled responsibly, preceded by a warning and justified by context; strongest language is not broadcast before the watershed.

“We are confident that our target audience and regular viewers have the right expectations of Channel Four content, and we have a strong track record on compliance.”

The BBC also said swearing had a place on television.

“For the BBC, it is not about quotas or stopping the judicious use of strong language, but rather avoiding gratuitous use and looking hard at context in terms of channel, genres of programme, time slot and audience expectation,” a spokesman for the corporation said.

“A sample of one week isn’t proof of any trends in one direction or another. Our recent research around taste and standards clearly demonstrated that the audience recognise when language is used for a clear purpose, but dislike unnecessary use.”

In June this year, a report on taste and decency by Alan Yentob, the BBC creative director, concluded: “In general, where strong language is integral to the meaning or content of a programme it should not be disguised.

“But in other circumstances it may be right to bleep or disguise the words, even after the watershed.”

The 25 programmes monitored, all starting at 9pm or later, were shown during the week to Thursday.

They were found to contain a total of 266 swear words, including 95 uses of the f-word and its derivatives, 51 uses of ’s***’ and its derivatives, and nine uses of ‘p***’ and its derivatives.

Among 25 programmes monitored last October, there were 88 uses of the f-word, 26 of s*** and 13 of p***.

“Broadcasters are not really responding to the public concern about swearing on television. “

There’s those words “public concern” again Johnny Boy? And the public is far wider than readers of The Telegraph and other Tory newspapers.

This apparent mass public concern about swearing on TV only really came to light after the “Sachsgate” affair. The Tory press held up a few complaints about rude words on TV as if there is a wave of public outrage and the likes of Beyer have been exploiting that to boost publicity of their own campaigns.

“there’s little that an ordinary viewer, who continues to be offended by this language, can do.”

Yes there is Johnny Boy! They know what it is, we know what it is and you know what it is. Come on it’s easy.

Go on have a go…

Go on…..

That’s right…you’re getting there…

It’s……………

Wait for it……

Brace yourself….

S…w….i….t…c….h….o.f…f

There,it was hard but we did it in the end!

Ban It Medical Association: Ban all booze ads (they may as well call for total prohibtion because that IS what they want)

The reason why the BMA is calling for a total ban on alcohol advertising is
because they believe the public too be so stupid and illeducated that they only
have to see adverts for alcohol and then they want to go out and get blind
drunk.

The BMA has become a high and mighty dictatorial organisation that thinks it
knows what is and is not best for the rest of us and wants bans and taxes
imposed on everything they deam “unhealthy” in order to force us all to live the
puratanical lives that they think we should be leading.

Yet they forget that odd saying of he who is without sin cast the first stone
and unless the BMA can prove they lead ultra healthy puratical lives they are in
no position to dictate to the rest of us.

From the BBC:

Doctors want booze marketing ban
By Nick Triggle
Health reporter, BBC News

There should be a ban on all alcohol advertising, including sports and music
sponsorship, doctors say.

The British Medical Association said the crackdown on marketing was needed,
along with an end to cut-price deals, to stop rising rates of consumption.

The industry spends £800m a year on promoting drinks – just a quarter of which
goes on direct advertising.

Doctors said action was essential as alcohol was now one of the leading causes
of early death and disability.

Only smoking and high blood pressure is responsible for a greater burden of
disease, according to the World Health Organization.

The cost to the NHS for treating injury and illness linked to drink has been
estimated to be anything up to £3bn a year in the UK.

It comes as alcohol consumption has been rising rapidly in recent years with
over a third of adults now drinking above the recommended amounts.

But the report said there was particular concern about the impact of marketing
on young people.

The report points out that while the money spent on alcohol advertising – nearly
£200m a year – remained significant, there had been a growth in more subtle
types of marketing.

The alcohol industry had, in particular, become a major sponsor of sports events
- second only to the finance sector in terms of overall funding.

But the report also highlighted merchandising, competitions and loyalty schemes
as influential forms of marketing that needed to be tackled.

And as well as calling for the outright ban marketing and advertising, the BMA
said there needed to be a reduction in licensing hours and tougher rules in
place on price.

The doctors’ body once again reiterated its call for minimum pricing to be
introduced to help combat promotions such as happy hours and two-for-one
purchases and higher levels of tax.

Price

Dr Vivienne Nathanson, the BMA’s head of science and ethics, said: “The BMA is
not anti-alcohol. As doctors our focus is to ensure that individuals drink
sensible so they do not put their health and lives in danger.”

Alison Rogers, chief executive of the British Liver Trust, said the report put a
“compelling case for change”.

“Alcohol is now marketed as a staple part of our diet in the UK.

“The way it is advertised, positioned in stores and its sheer cheapness leads
people into feeling that buying and consuming large amounts of alcohol regularly
is just the same as life’s essentials like bread and milk.”

And Don Shenker, of Alcohol Concern, added: “There’s no longer any doubt – the
heavy marketing and promotion of alcohol, combined with low prices – are
encouraging young people to drink at a level our health services are struggling
to cope with.”

Scotland, where minimum pricing has already been put forward by ministers, has
also asked the UK government to review advertising and marketing – the devolved
administration does not have the power to introduce such changes on its own.

But so far the Department of Health has resisted such calls, preferring to
encourage the industry to sign up to voluntary codes.

It said its current approach, which incorporates the £10m Know Your Limits
public health campaign to encourage responsible drinking, was having an impact.

A spokesman added: “We’re working harder than ever to reduce alcohol harm — but
it’s not always right to legislate. We take all evidence into account and react
proportionately.”

And Jeremy Beadles, chief executive of the Wine and Spirit Trade Association,
said the measures proposed by the BMA would hit the pockets of millions of
consumers and threaten the livelihoods of thousands of people working in the
drinks industry, media, advertising and television.

He said: “Britain already has amongst the highest taxes on alcohol in Europe.

“It should be obvious by now that higher taxation and higher prices don’t curb
alcohol misuse.

“The drinks industry is funding a major campaign to change drinking patterns
amongst young adults.

“We believe culture change is more likely to be achieved through long term
education and tough enforcement.”

Mediasnoops has said before that banning alcohol ads, and slapping huge price
increases on boooze are easy measures because they do not do anything to tackle
the route causes of excessive alcohol consumption.

Governments and the health police can pin the blame on all the alcohol industry
in order to deflect attention away from these route causes so they can avoid
dealing with them.

Issues such as mental health problems (where are the press releases calling from
the BMA calling for the government to stop cutting funding for mental health
services…oh sorry they are too busy trying ban booze ads!), relationship
breakdown, unemployment (we are in a recession and people are losing their jobs
so it’s no wonder some people are turning to the bottle), abuse and domestic
violence are all linked to problem drinking yet the government and the BMA duck
out of tackling those problems.

The reason they duck out of tackling them is because tackling them would take
time and effort and most of all would cost MONEY.

Far easier to pretend that none of those issues cause excessive alcohol
consmuption and say it’s all the fault of the alcohol industry, advertising and
“cheap” drinks promotion.

And banning and legislating against adverts and cheap promotions doesn’t require
any effort, consideration or spending of any money.

Just pass a law and it’s finished with. But the problems won’t go away.

It’s clear the BMA don’t want doctors to have to help patients with drink
problems deal with the issues that are causing them drink to excess.

It would save them the hassle if they would just say to their patients “Hey it’s
not the fact that you’ve lost your job, your wife and kids have left you and you
are depressed that you get drunk every night. It’s because you have seen adverts
for alcohol on TV!”

Much much easier and much cheaper.

We live in streesful, work till you drop society. The BMA cannot say how the
pressures on people, and in particular young people to conform to this society
can cause them to turn to alcohol to make them feel better and to fill a void in
their lives.

They are far more bothered with banning alcohol ads and furthering restrictions
on people’s freedoms rather than tackling the very real problems that people
face in today’s tough world.

The BMA are just concerned with telling people what to do rather than helping
people.

When booze ads are banned and people are still binge drinking and dying of
alcohol related diseases who will the BMA blame then?

Theirselves? Fat chance!