The media gets the blame for making people fat (junk food ads), making people drunk (alcohol ads) and it gets the blame for making people too thin.

From The  Mirror:

Airbrushed adverts of “thin-ideal” models pose a “significant risk” to the health of young women

By Bob Roberts 9/11/2009

Airbrushed adverts of “thin-ideal” models pose a “significant risk” to the health of young women, say experts.

 

Women’s daily exposure to “images of perfection” is linked to depression, insecurity and eating disorders, says a study by 40 doctors, psychologists and academics.

 

The findings have sparked fresh calls for the Advertising Standards Authority to clamp down on airbrushed pictures.

 

So far the ASA has said there is not enough evidence that such images do harm.

 

The Impact of Media Images on Body Image and Behaviours report said: “Body dissatisfaction is a significant risk for physical health, mental health, and thus well-being. Any factor, such as idealised images, that increases body dissatisfaction is thus an important influence on well-being.”

 

 

It added that exposure to “thin-ideal images” produced “significant increases in self-reported depression, stress, guilt, shame, insecurity and body dissatisfaction”.

 

Lib Dem MP Jo Swinson, who has campaigned against airbrushing, said the ASA “now has all the scientific evidence it needs to act”.

 

Last month, there was an outcry after a digitally altered photograph of Filippa Hamilton-Palmstierna showed her looking emaciated in a Ralph Lauren shoot. The 8st 6lb model was later sacked by the fashion house amid allegations she was too fat.

 

Maybe these airbrushed pictures might have an impact on how some girls think they should look.

 

But eating disorders such as anorexia are linked to wider problems such as depression and abuse.

 

Of course tackling those problems would be harder and more costly than just banning pictures of thin women.

 

Just as banning ads for alcohol or “junk” food is seen as an easier and cheaper way to deal with alcoholism and obsesity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He will probably start blaming video games for terrorist now.

From The Times courtesy of the Melon Farmers:

Brutal video game prepares to make a killing

Nigel Kendall, Technology Editor

<!–

–>

<!– Remove following

to not show photographer information –><!– Remove following

to not show image description –><!– Tip: This

here with the id “dynamic-image-navigation” is used so that the innerHTML can be written to by the JS call below. –>

A new video game that gives players the option to kill civilians in a terrorist attack is expected to become the most lucrative release when it goes on sale on Tuesday.

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, the latest in a series of first-person war games, features bloody conflict. It is so realistic that at some points a warning offers players the option to skip scenes.

In the course of the ten hours or so the game will take to complete in solo mode, the player will assume a variety of roles in a global war against Russian ultranationalists led by Vladimir Makarov.

One of the most controversial of these is an episode in which a character must choose whether to kill unarmed civilians in a Russian airport to infiltrate a terrorist group successfully.

The scene is so shocking that Activision, the game’s distributor, issued a statement. “At the beginning of the game, there are two ‘checkpoints’ where the player is advised that some people may find an upcoming segment disturbing. These checkpoints can’t be disabled,” it said. “Modern Warfare 2 is a fantasy action game designed for intense, realistic game play that mirrors real life conflicts, much like epic, action movies.It is appropriately rated 18 for violent scenes.”

Critics of the game, however, have accused Activision of being disingenuous. Warnings of extreme content had a strong appeal to younger players, they said.

Keith Vaz, Labour MP for Leicester East, told The Times: “I am absolutely shocked by the level of violence in this game and am particularly concerned about how realistic the game itself looks. Whilst I appreciate that this game has been certified as an 18, I firmly believe that certain levels of violence should not be made into interactive entertainment. This would include acting as a terrorist, as is the case here, or violence against women. I will be raising this issue in Parliament on Monday.”

The last game to generate similar controversy was Grand Theft Auto IV, released in April, 2008, in which players steal cars and murder their way to the top of the big-city underworld.

On release, GTA IV broke all records for an entertainment product, grossing $300 million in its first 24 hours on sale, nearly three times as much as the movie blockbuster Iron Man, which was released the following month.

Retailers claim that it is on target to break all records for an entertainment product. GAME, the computer chain, is opening 320 of its stores at midnight on Monday to cope with demand.

Stuart Rowe, chief operating officer of the online retailer, Play.com, told The Times: “Modern Warfare 2 will undoubtedly become the most popular video game of all time. The demand has been unprecedented, pre-sales of the game have already overtaken all previous records set across our broad range of product categories.”

The company expects sales to beat even those of recent blockbuster DVDs such as Mamma Mia and The Dark Knight.

“Critics of the game, however, have accused Activision of being disingenuous. Warnings of extreme content had a strong appeal to younger players, they said.”

And moral outrage and calls for bans are likely to make games with extreme content even more of a strong appeal for younger players.

“I am absolutely shocked by the level of violence in this game “

Oh Kieth you get shocked by anything other than Sonic The Hedghog.

Mind you even that probably would give old Vaz a heart attack!

“Whilst I appreciate that this game has been certified as an 18, I firmly believe that certain levels of violence should not be made into interactive entertainment.”

So it really IS about trying to stop games you dissaprove of being made and trying to stop people from playing them!

It’s not really about concern for “harm” that these games do but mearley personal distaste towards their content.

A game where players can act as a terrorist won’t turn players into terrorists but because Kieth finds it in poor taste he wants it banned.

Yep!

He will be raising the issue in Parliament. Yep, the financial crises, the illegal occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan can all wait. We need to ban these sick games NOW!

]]> http://mediasnoops.wordpress.com/2009/11/07/vaz-winges-about-terrorist-option-in-war-game/feed/ 0 profreedan Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 http://mediasnoops.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/c4-vampiree-drama-sucking-innocent-our-of-our-children-wails-daily-mail-nut/ http://mediasnoops.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/c4-vampiree-drama-sucking-innocent-our-of-our-children-wails-daily-mail-nut/#comments Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:53:02 +0000 profreedan http://mediasnoops.wordpress.com/?p=758 ]]>

Daily Mail writers who are parents have an easy job. Tune in to the TV and find out what “filth” their kids are watching and then instead of stopping their kids from watching it write a doom mongering “society and our children are being destroyed” tirade in their newspaper so that other middle class parents are panicked into thinking their children’s souls are being destroyed by “pornographic filth” on TV.

From the Daily Mail:

True Blood vampires and the explicit TV sucking the innocence out of our children

By Olivia Lichtenstein
05th November 2009

Any parent with a teenager will be painfully aware that for impressionable young TV viewers, there’s nothing sexier than a vampire – and it’s got nothing to do with Halloween.

Channel 4’s latest attempt to seduce us with a mixture of swearing and sex comes in the form of True Blood, the latest in the long line of sexually explicit, violent and vulgar programmes that have, sadly, become the norm on British television.

True Blood is a shocking tale of depravity, explicit sexuality (bordering on pornography) and vile language.

Even before the opening credits have rolled in the first episode, we see a young woman pleasuring a young man while driving her car.

Sexually explicit: But True Blood can be accessed at any time by children via the internet

The plot is lazily set up at the outset via a television broadcast of a lady vampire informing us that since scientists have found a way to make artificial human blood, vampires no longer represent a threat to society.

As the tale unfolds, we learn there has been a horrifying reversal of events and that some humans, known as vampire drainers, like to drink the blood of vampires as it increases their strength, sexual appetite and performance.

The programme is full of others with fantastical powers. Set in Louisiana, there’s the telepathic waitress, Sookie, and the ’shapeshifter’ Sam.

Then there are the ‘fang-bangers’ – humans who like having sex with vampires – and the drug dealers.

More offensive than all this is the sheer distasteful nature of the content. There’s oral sex, overt discussion of genitalia, graphic sex scenes bordering on the deviant, and foul language.

We see a man having sex with a woman while watching a video of the same woman having sex with a vampire. The excitement engendered in the pair leads to rough sex and results in her murder.

It’s animalistic, violent, corrupt and scary, and it airs on one of our terrestrial channels at 10pm on Wednesdays, a time when tens of thousands of children under 16 are still watching TV.

Sure, it’s an hour after the watershed, but I can’t help but worry that children will find their way to this programme, which is a massive hit in the U.S..

If only True Blood were a one-off, I wouldn’t be so depressed that this is what Channel 4 wants us all to watch.

But a glance at our schedules reveals that sex, violence and vulgar language have become the staples that make up the British TV diet.

Content that would have had viewers up in arms 15 years ago rarely causes concern today.

 

Various U.S. studies have shown that teens who watch a lot of sexual content on TV are more likely to initiate intercourse or participate in other sexual activities earlier than peers who don’t watch sexually explicit shows.

This, of course, is why we in Britain have the watershed to signify when family viewing ends and programmes with adult content can begin. It is set at 9pm and stays in force until 5.30am.

However, the criteria for what is suitable for broadcast before and after the watershed is somewhat woolly.

Take sex, for example. Ofcom states that: ‘Representations of sexual intercourse must not occur before the watershed, or when children are particularly likely to be listening, unless there is a serious educational purpose.’

The problem today is that, while Channel 4 would no doubt argue that True Blood is screened after 9pm, the watershed is not as effective as it once was.

First, the breakdown of the traditional family means that many children might not be supervised adequately.

And even if a parent does try to stop a child of 15 watching True Blood on a Wednesday night, the fact that so many have a TV in their bedroom means they can watch it anyway.

That aside, with the proliferation of television channels, instant recording facilities and the internet, it’s increasingly difficult to monitor children’s viewing.

Worryingly for parents, one quarter of 12 to 15-year-olds watch television or film content via websites (such as BBC iPlayer, Sky Player or ITV Player).

On its website, the BBC states that it ‘expects parents and carers to share in the responsibility for assessing whether programme content is suitable for their children’.

It is now far too easy for unsuitable content to slip through the net by becoming available online.

Already, our children are far too knowing, and their television viewing has long been sucking the innocence out of them.

They’ve been subjected to a string of programmes that have corrupted their eager minds: Gossip Girl (screened at 7pm), Skins, Sex & The City and Desperate Housewives.

Many of my 16-year-old daughter’s peers have been sexually active from the age of 13 or 14. There are no longer any taboos, and there is little they won’t discuss – if not do – with each other in the most explicit terms.

There is, it seems, no subject out of bounds and little sense of privacy. I am far from being a prude, but I find myself longing for the days when, in a movie, if a couple were kissing or lying on a bed, they had to keep one foot on the ground.

When television started, it was, as set out by Lord Reith, given a mission to inform, educate and entertain in that order.

In a ratings-obsessed culture where many broadcasters are fighting to stay on the air, it appears that those tenets have been all but forgotten.

Interestingly, Ofcom has done no research into the effects of such programming on children and adolescents.

With the watershed rendered obsolete by new technology, I think it’s high time we, as a society, should all think about how to protect the minds of the young before they become so desensitised that they regard as the norm behaviour which is, essentially, abnormal.
“It’s animalistic, violent, corrupt and scary, and it airs on one of our terrestrial channels at 10pm on Wednesdays.”

Looool! The programme’s makers and Channel 4 will be thrilled over that recomendation and stirling piece of free publicity.

Thank for the tip off luv, we will be sure to be tuning in every Wednesday night at 1o!

“A time when tens of thousands of children under 16 are still watching TV.”

All of whom will be corrupted by watching vampires having it off?

Yeah right!

“Various U.S. studies have shown that teens who watch a lot of sexual content on TV are more likely to initiate intercourse or participate in other sexual activities earlier than peers who don’t watch sexually explicit shows.”

But there are no studies that show that watching sex on TV (or in any other media) causes teens to want to have sex.

Which is what Ms Lichtenstien is trying to suggest. But as there’s no evidence then she’s plainly talking hogwash!

“Already, our children are far too knowing, and their television viewing has long been sucking the innocence out of them.”

Yeah middle class children were all so innocent, and thought  sex was some dirty thing adults did to make babies (or they thought they were dropped out of the sky)  until TV and it’s evil corrupting and sex ridden shows like True Blood came along and destroyed their very souls!

“Many of my 16-year-old daughter’s peers have been sexually active from the age of 13 or 14. “

So now we know, it’s not just the Daily Mail sterotype of “scummy lower class” girls from council estates who are having sex at an early age but girls from “nice and wholesome” middle class homes too.

And some of them are the daughters of girls who’s Mums write for the Daily Mail!

Yee gads!

 ”I am far from being a prude, but I find myself longing for the days when, in a movie, if a couple were kissing or lying on a bed, they had to keep one foot on the ground.”

Oh go get yourself a time machine and put a sock in it luv!

Mediasnoops notes contributors to both the readers comments bit of Ms Lichtenstien’s article and a debate on the Daily Mail’s Female section mostly say that she’s talking a load of bollox!

Maybe some Mail readers are more enlightened then we give them credit for. Not too many but some.

Lol!

]]> http://mediasnoops.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/c4-vampiree-drama-sucking-innocent-our-of-our-children-wails-daily-mail-nut/feed/ 0 profreedan True Blood http://mediasnoops.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/article-about-bin-killer-games-bollox/ http://mediasnoops.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/article-about-bin-killer-games-bollox/#comments Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:48:19 +0000 profreedan http://mediasnoops.wordpress.com/?p=756 ]]>

Interesting article, worth a read:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/killerspiele

Rebecca Addlington can be the poster girl for the Daily Mail’s campaign against those “evil liberal lefty right-on” comedians who as we all know think it’s ok to make fun of nice middle class girl like her but wouldn’t dare make jokes about black, gays, lesbians, one eyed transexuals etc etc blah blah blah!

From the Daily Mail:

Rebecca Adlington complains to BBC that punishment for Frankie Boyle is just ’slap on the wrist’

By Paul Sims
 02nd November 2009

Hurt: Rebecca Adlington has formally complained about comedian Frankie Boyle’s comments

Olympic swimming champion Rebecca Adlington has formally complained to the BBC that it let comedian Frankie Boyle off with ‘a slap on the wrist’ over jokes that caused her deep hurt.

The double gold medal winner at last year’s Beijing Olympics has demanded an explanation from the BBC Trust over why it chose not to punish the comic for ‘outrageous’ slurs that left her ‘humiliated’.

And her agent has called for the BBC to ban Boyle over his comments.

During an episode of BBC2’s satirical show Mock The Week last year, soon after Miss Adlington’s Olympic triumph, Boyle said she resembled ’someone looking at themselves in the back of a spoon’ and followed up with sexual innuendo.

The comments sparked 75 complaints, but although the BBC Trust criticised 37-year-old Boyle and agreed that his remarks were unfair and offensive it took no further action such as barring him from its programmes for a period.

Miss Adlington, who came third in the BBC’s Sports Personality of the Year contest in December, has now written to the corporation, calling its rebuke no more than ‘a slap on the wrist’ for comments which fell ‘well below the standards of common decency’.

She questioned the effectiveness of the Trust’s disciplinary process and called for the corporation to take ‘greater responsibility’ for its stars.

An unrepentant Boyle, who has since quit Mock The Week, has refused to even apologise.

He ridiculed the BBC Trust rulings as worthless and went on to compare Adlington to a beagle.

His reaction contrasts with that of comedian Jimmy Carr, who apologised last week for a joke about wounded soldiers which provoked a public outcry.

Last year the BBC was forced to tighten its controls after the furore over the lewd phone calls made by Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand to former Fawlty Towers actor Andrew Sachs.

Miss Adlington’s manager Rob Woodhouse said last night: ‘The BBC needs to take more responsibility for the people it employs to ensure that they uphold the highest of standards. To say what Frankie Boyle did about Rebecca, who was only 19 at the time, was disgusting.

Controversial comic Boyle has now quit Mock The Week, the show on which he made the remarks about the swimmer

‘It seems that the defence of him from others is that he is a comedian and that’s what they do. But attacking a young woman like this wasn’t funny, it was disgraceful. It’s not acceptable in any form.’

Mr Woodhouse said the BBC had failed to get its message across.

He added: ‘Frankie Boyle has made it very clear that he doesn’t care what the BBC Trust say or do.

‘Essentially, he was given a slap on the wrist and there are no real implications for him. For a comedian or any sort of performer, the media is their promotional vehicle.

‘If the BBC chose to remove the oxygen of publicity and stopped him appearing in their shows, then maybe that could act as a deterrent.’

Earlier this week Boyle said the public could not care less about the Trust’s rulings, adding: ‘Who are these people? What authority do they have to judge comedy?’

‘It’s a question of how boring people want TV to be.

‘People aren’t going to be happy until you boil it down to cooking and ****ing property shows. ****ing hell, it’s so ****ing boring already. Those jokes weren’t that risqué anyway. There was no malice in them.’

The BBC Trust said last night it had received Miss Adlington’s letter and would consider it, but added: ‘At this stage we have no plans to review the finding’.

Rebecca Addlington can be the poster girl for the Daily Mail’s campaign against “evil liberal lefty right-on” alternative comedians.

It won’t be long before one of their hacks pen a “He wouldn’t have got away with it if he said it about blacks, gays and Muslims!” rant.

“Earlier this week Boyle said the public could not care less about the Trust’s rulings.”

Yep, as most people have better things to do than winge about jokes on TV. 

“It’s a question of how boring people want TV to be.”

Daily Mail reading middle England want TV to be very boring, where no risks are taken and nobody is offended…

Well nobody except people from ethnic minorities, gays and Muslims of course.

“People aren’t going to be happy until you boil it down to cooking and ****ing property shows”

Lollll! Frankie’s spot on!

As for Ms Addlington you would think that a sportswoman who puts herself through vigorous training regiemes in order to win Gold medals would have a bit thicker skin.

We notice that Wayne Rooney doesn’t compalin at all the jokes Frankie makes at his exepense! Who said it was footballers who are “pampered premaddonas” who can’t take a bit of stick?

Well said that man!

From The Mirror:

Jimmy Carr angry brigade is beyond a joke

By Brian Reade 29/10/2009

Fortunately for our troops Jim Davidson hasn’t recently been foisted upon them to crank up the horrors of war.

 

But imagine if he were, and he delivered the following gag: “The Ragheads may be blowing Our Boys’ limbs off, but don’t worry ’cos in 2012 Britannia will rule by having the best Paralympic team in the ******* world.”

 

What would the reaction be? I’m guessing whoops and laughter from squaddies and an honourable mention in despatches for raising morale through barrack-room humour.

 

Yet Jimmy Carr delivers the same (arguably less offensive) gag to an audience who paid to hear his near-the-knuckle brand of comedy, and fury erupts from people who weren’t at the gig, and haven’t been maimed in action.

 

A quick check of soldiers’ websites shows most found it funny. Some had heard the gag before from fellow squaddies. And of the minority offended, many gave Carr the benefit of the doubt because he regularly visits limbless soldiers in hospital to give them a boost.

 

But all that means nothing to the New Moral Army, who believe that the national revulsion over Andrew Sachs’ treatment by two trendy comics, gives them the right to object to any material that’s more dangerous than Cannon and Ball.

 

It’s why the brilliant Frankie Boyle is thinking of jacking in Mock The Week, after the BBC Trust censured him for saying swimmer Rebecca Adlington looks like someone staring at themselves in the back of a spoon.

 

Which she does. And which didn’t offend her. But it offended The Professionally Offended. That band of Rentaquote MPs, Middle England commentators, religious pressure groups and moral activists, who rail against the nanny state, but feel they should be sitting on a regulator which censors every comedic uttering.

 

Patrick Mercer said Carr’s gag was so offensive to soldiers that his career should “end right now”.

 

This is the Tory MP who was sacked from the shadow cabinet for arguing that there’s nothing wrong with calling non-white soldiers “black bastards”.

 

Remember when Prince Harry called a fellow soldier “my P*** friend”? How many of the Rentaquotes who now pillory Carr claimed that kind of “banter” was “part and parcel” of army life. And taking offence was “political correctness gone mad”.

 

Good comedy makes you think. I’m not saying Carr’s gag was that good, but the mass regurgitation of it has made us think. About why so many of our soldiers are losing limbs in a futile war, and how many would still have them if we weren’t so indifferent to their lack of equipment.

 

Could this explain the attacks on Carr? Did he unintentionally open a raw wound in our collectively shamed conscience.

 

My advice to the Professionally Offendeds is to go and flagellate yourselves before a Mary Whitehouse shrine, because your faux fury isn’t funny any more.

 

And leave comedians like Carr alone. Safe in the knowledge that if, as you believe, they keep shooting themselves in the feet, at least we’ll have one hell of a Paralympic team in 2012. Outraged comedians, feel free to complain.

 

  

 

Mediasnoops was also heartened at Frankie Boyle speeking out against  BBC producers trying to stop comedians making jokes about risky subjects.

 

This from Broadcast Now:

 

Comic hits out at BBC producers

28 October, 2009

 

Mock The Week star Frankie Boyle has hit out at the programme’s producers for asking panellists to avoid discussing serious issues.

 

 

 

The controversial comic, who has quit the BBC2 show, launched the attack in an interview with Time Out magazine revealing that panellists were asked to talk about “light, frothy stuff”.

 

Boyle was rebuked by the BBC Trust for “humiliating” Olympic gold medal winner, Rebecca Adlington. The Scottish comic said she looked “like someone who’s looking at themselves in the back of a spoon”.

 

But Boyle remained unrepentant about the “offensive comments”. He claimed the BBC Trust’s criticism was “b*****ks” and that few people cared about it.

 

In the interview with Time Out, Boyle responded to the Trust’s remarks saying: “If we were allowed to do stuff about equipment shortages in Afghanistan or the swine flu vaccination programme there would be more intrinsic interest for the audience and we wouldn’t need to hook them in so much.

 

“We could be gentler, more whimsical and much more sophisticated with it. But in the end they get what they ask for.”

 

He said the producer’s decision to shirk the serious issues “made the comedy more extreme”.

 

The more comedians and entertainers speek out against the culture of fear that has perpetuated since the “Sachsgate” affair the better.

 

Kudous all round to Mr Boyle and Mr Reade!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Daily Mail must be compiling some sort of dossier to prove how, apparently the BBC is run by “wet, PC lefty liberals” who think it’s acceptable to make fun of the Queen, Christians, Tory voters blah blah but apparently censors anything that could be seen as racist.

A gentle quip? Would the Mail think it a gentle quip if it was about the Queen?

From the Daily Mail:

HOBNOBGATE! Or how the BBC’s thought police took the (chocolate) biscuit…by covering up a gentle quip

By Liz Thomas and Simon Cable
Last updated at 8:37 AM on 28th October 2009

Its irreverent take on the week’s best political stories rarely raises an eyebrow outside the Westminster village.

But BBC1 show This Week threw bosses into a panic yesterday after host Andrew Neil light-heartedly compared MP Diane Abbott to a chocolate HobNob biscuit.

Corporation chiefs, terrified of a race backlash, immediately removed all trace of the episode from its websites and iPlayer on-demand service following 15 complaints from viewers.

But the move has infuriated licence fee payers, many of whom have flooded message boards demanding to know why the programme has been taken off the site earlier than usual.

Last night, politicians and lobby groups accused the BBC of being ‘ institutionally politically correct’ and ‘ paranoid’.

‘I only wish that they would take such a hard line against swearing, rather than things like this.’

The episode – which was broadcast immediately after BNP leader Nick Griffin’s controversial appearance on Question Time last Thursday – opened with Neil joking about Gordon Brown’s favourite biscuit with co-hosts Miss Abbott and Michael Portillo.

It came just days after it was revealed the Prime Minister had been unable to name his favourite biscuit during an interview, despite being asked 12 times.

Neil went on to compare the panelists as types of biscuit, saying: ‘Here we have our very own chocolate HobNob and custard cream – Diane Abbott and Michael Portillo.’

Panic- stricken BBC executives removed all trace of the show from its websites and iPlayer the following evening.

BBC insiders admitted yesterday that a heightened atmosphere of ’sensitivity’ because of Griffin’s appearance on Question Time could have led to the decision.

But MP John Whittingdale, chair of the media select committee, said the corporation had ‘completely overreacted’ and called for the missing show to be reinstated online.

‘Nobody could seriously believe calling Diane Abbott a chocolate HobNob and Michael Portillo a custard cream to be racist,’ he added.

Vivienne Pattison, director of lobby group Mediawatch, said: ‘There was also the offensive remarks made about the Queen on Mock The Week recently, which was much worse but was allowed to go out.

‘In comparison Andrew Neil’s joke was minor and there were only a handful of complaints yet it gets pulled.

‘It does raise questions about their decision-making process, which doesn’t appear to be transparent or consistent.

‘There doesn’t seem to be any rhyme or reason.’

One fan said they had logged on to iPlayer only to receive a message saying the show had been revoked for ‘editorial reasons’.

‘Having watched the programme live, I am rather baffled as to what those editorial reasons could be,’ he added.

A further post said: ‘This Week was available on Friday afternoon but by Friday evening, when I wanted to watch it, it was no longer available. What’s going on?’

A BBC spokesman said: ‘Andrew’s introduction chose two well-known types of biscuit at random but a few viewers have expressed concern that this might have been a reference to race.

This was certainly not the case and the show would like to reassure them on this point and apologise if any unintentional offence was caused.’

Neil, Portillo and Miss Abbott did not respond to inquiries about the incident.

The row comes just two weeks after Strictly Come Dancing host Bruce Forsyth warned Britons now lived in an age of ‘extraordinary political correctness’, claiming the nation needed to ‘get a sense of humour’.

The 81-year-old was defending dancer Anton Du Beke after he said partner Laila Rouass ‘looked like a Paki’ off screen

“I only wish that they would take such a hard line against swearing, rather than things like this.”

In other words…..

Racism is ok as long as there is no swearing!

Ohh look Vivienne Pattison has got her second rent-a-quote….

“There was also the offensive remarks made about the Queen on Mock The Week recently, which was much worse but was allowed to go out.”

Viv keeping up Mediawatch UK’s view that racism is fine but jokes about the Queen are off limits nicely there.

“In comparison Andrew Neil’s joke was minor and there were only a handful of complaints yet it gets pulled.”

Hang on there just a second! Viv is the director of Mediawatch UK which adovocates people complaining when they find something offensive or objectionable on TV.

They believe that once people have complained about something on TV it should be pulled from the airwaves, never to be seen again by anyone.

And this is just what the BBC have done! So should she not be applauding them for doing that rather than winging and complaining about how they didn’t do anything when someone made “offensive” remarks about the Queen?

Unless of course she thinks that people complaining about something which could be racist are not worth listening to and only those who complain about swearing, sex, nudity and jokes about the Queen should get their way!

As we have said before it is not the BBC who have double standards but the self appointed moral guardians of Tory middle England.

They believe it’s ok to offend some but not others.

And this just about sums that up!

Most of you will have read the manufactured outrage about Jimmy Carr telling a joke about army personal who have lost limbs in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Here’s a take on it from a different angle which puts the rush to be offended and disgusted into perspective.

From The Independent:

Dominic Lawson: Jimmy Carr and the pomposity of those professing outrage

MPs have been quick to join in the confection of fury over a comedian’s joke

Tuesday, 27 October 2009

This week’s target for vicarious outrage is the comedian Jimmy Carr. He had made the following remark in last Friday night’s show at the Manchester Apollo theatre: “Say what you like about servicemen amputees from Iraq and Afghanistan, but we’re going to have a f—–g good Paralympic team in 2012.”

If you believe the suspiciously identical reports in various different newspapers, the 2,500-strong audience were “stunned” and “gasped with shock”. I’m more inclined to trust the reader who emailed one such paper to say, “I was at the Manchester Apollo that Friday and the audience was not ’stunned into silence’. The place erupted in laughter.”

The reason the newspapers described the audience as reacting like dowager virgins at a strip-joint was of course to encourage their readers to be appropriately outraged. A typical headline was the Sunday Express’s “Fans stunned as Jimmy Carr insults our Afghan heroes” – presumably relying on their readers not to point out that whatever Carr was trying to say, it was not an insult.

Naturally the MPs were quick to join in the confection of fury – can it ever be a mistake for a politician to rush to the defence of “our boys”, even when not invited to do so? According to the Daily Mail, the defence secretary, Bob Ainsworth, let it be known that he was “furious” with the comedian, declaring that “our armed forces put their lives on the line and deserve the utmost respect”. His Tory Shadow, Liam Fox, said that Carr had “gone beyond the pale”. The Conservative MP Patrick Mercer, chairman of the Commons Terrorism sub-committee went further: “It’s not funny and this man’s career should end right now…it’s too late for an apology.”

People seldom seem more pointlessly pompous than when they declare a joke to be “not funny”; and as for Carr’s career being at an end, I suspect he will still be doing successful stand-up long after everyone has forgotten who Patrick Mercer is – assuming that they knew in the first place.

Above all, I am certain that Jimmy Carr will be much more popular with the squaddies out in Iraq and Afghanistan than any of the politicians who sent them out there into harm’s way. This is not least because Carr, unlike Ainsworth apparently, has been a regular visitor to the Selly Oak Hospital in Birmingham and the neighbouring rehabilitation unit Headley Court, where maimed British soldiers – hundreds each year – are treated within the NHS. He will have witnessed for himself the amazing moral and physical strength required to recover from appalling injuries and trauma – and also the remarkable skills of the medical teams giving the hope of some sort of tolerable life to men who in previous wars would have had little possibility even of survival.

What Carr will also have picked up from his visits to Selly Oak is that those injured soldiers have the blackest of banter, which absolutely does not exclude jokes about their own terrible injuries and those of their colleagues. A friend of mine, whose son is now serving in Afghanistan, tells me that the black humour starts when the injured soldier is being pulled from the wreckage of some bomb blast and his rescuer says, “Can I have your watch, mate?”.

Now it is certainly true that what is absolutely acceptable banter between an injured soldier and a colleague who is saving his life would not seem so amusing when uttered by someone who is not part of the regiment. The relationships forged in a regiment during battle are as close as any family tie – in many ways closer – and we all know how family members can make jokes about each other which would be regarded as abhorrent if made by outsiders.

So what do the troops think about Carr’s one-liner about their injured colleagues’ paralympic potential? The place to look is the Army Rumour Service, known as Arse, the website most used by squaddies to converse with each other online. When I looked yesterday there were 12 pages of comments on Carr’s remark and the controversy surrounding it – and I found it very difficult to find a single one which had taken real offence.

Here is a representative cross-section: “I thought it was a cracking comment, much better than his usual ‘jokes’”… “The outrage from politicians is a cynical move. Resist it.”… “If you can’t take a joke, you shouldn’t have signed up”… “Laughing at life’s pain is better than the self-pity that passes for normality these days”… “I had already heard the joke from one of the guys at the Headley Centre who left bits of his body behind in Afghanistan. Typical comedian stealing someone else’s joke”… “Just told one of our lads the gag (he lost his leg in Afghan) and he thought it was funny as f—. That will do for me.”

That will do for me, too. Perhaps Bob Ainsworth, who still seems rather out of his depth as Defence Secretary, should visit this website – although I fear he will also come across remarks about his Government’s handling of the campaign in Afghanistan which will not make it a very enjoyable reading experience.

As I noted at the outset, Jimmy Carr is only the latest to fall foul of those who want to be outraged on behalf of the very people who fail to see what the fuss is all about. Two weeks ago their hate-figure was the X-Factor judge Dannii Minogue. When a male performer, Darryl Johnson, changed the text of a song to make it appear that he was singing a love song to a woman, Minogue remarked, ” If we are to believe everything we read in the paper maybe you didn’t need to change the gender reference in that song”. This was apparently a reference to stories that Mr Johnson is bisexual.

Whoosh! Within days the media watchdog Ofcom had received close to 4,000 complaints on Mr Johnson’s behalf. Ms Minogue duly offered a series of grovelling apologies; but the alleged victim of her supposedly deeply hurtful remarks insisted that “I was not at all offended by Dannii’s comment. We’re completely cool about it and chatted after the show”. And again, if you look at the comments on the Pink News website, you will discover that gay readers are much less scandalised than the mainstream tabloid press want them to be.

It is not only the press that is guilty of this misplaced vicarious outrage. It is increasingly the mission of the police to bring the full force of the law against those who might possibly have offended someone, somewhere. For example, it was reported yesterday that a 67-year-old evangelical Christian, Pauline Howe, had been visited and questioned by two police officers, on the grounds that she might have committed a “hate crime”.

This was their response to a letter she had written to Norwich City Council, objecting to a local gay pride march, on the admittedly odd grounds that “gay sex is a major cause of sexually transmitted infections”. The Norfolk constabulary continued to intone self-righteously that “We will investigate all alleged hate incidents”, even after the chief of the gay pressure group Stonewall, Ben Summerskill, had described their knock-on-the-door response to Mrs Howe’s letter as “disproportionate.”

I don’t know about you, but I’m beginning to find the behaviour of those always finding reasons to be outraged on behalf of others to be offensive in itself. It is they who should be made to apologise – for the great crime of pointlessness.

Well put Mr Lawson.

A far bigger outrage is our elected politicians (who have rushed to proclaim their self righteous outrage towards Carr’s joke) sending our troops into illegal and unjustified wars where they are get their limbs blown off in order to satsify these politicians lustings for power and world domination.

And what a nerve these MPs have condeming Carr for “insulting” our troops when they send them to die in these wars, illequipped and illtrained!

Now that really is an insult!