So I will be out of action until Tuesday 31st January.

Also before the laptop went down I found Vodaphone mobile broadband’s content control has blocked my website! So need to get that lifted!

Jeez!

Anyway until then!

They love her, why don’t they just admit it?

From the Daily Mail:

Not leaving much to the imagination: Rihanna reveals almost every inch of her skin in cutaway silver swimsuit

By Sarah Fitzmaurice

While she might be taking time off from touring and putting the hours in the studio, Rihanna is still working her body – to devastating effect.

The singer stepped out in a revealing silver swimsuit which left very little to the imagination for a day aboard a luxury boat in Hawaii.

The tiny silver number covered the bare minimum of flesh and boasted sheer cut away panels to display her every curve. 

 

How do you swim in THAT? Rihanna showed off her incredible bikini in a sexy silver cutaway swimsuit as she enjoyed a boat trip with friends in Hawaii

Slender as ever: Not many people would be able to wear the incredible daring one-piece, but Rihanna pulled it off

It appears the 23-year-old singer was so enamoured with her hot look that she wanted to share it with her 12million Twitter followers.

She posted a rear shot which showed off her pert derriere with the caption ‘Wake…Bake…#CAKE.’

There’s no doubt that today’s ensemble is one of her most skimpy, which is by no means an easy feat given her penchant for flashing plenty of flesh.

 

Struggling? At points, Rihanna appeared to be attempting to adjust the precariously cut swimsuit

Pulling it up: Rihanna covered herself in a towel as she spent time with friends on the vessel

But who can blame her for sharing her incredible figure with her fans which appeared curved and toned in all the right places.

Rihanna had her hair curled and piled up on top of her head and kept it out of her face with a brown visor.

Yesterday the singer tweeted: ‘I love u so much! Can’t believe we’re here already… #12Milli thank u.’

 

Like what you see? Earlier in the day, Rihanna had shared a picture of herself wearing the swimsuit on her Twitter page

Over the past few days of her holiday the singer has been spotted smoking a suspicious looking cigarette and her antics haven’t lost her any fans.

On her Twitter Rihanna appeared to clear up exactly what she has been smoking by quoting some lyrics from rapper Drake’s song Up All Night.

She wrote: ‘Kush rolled, glass full… I prefer the better things!’ Kush refers to a type of cannabis found mainly in Afghanistan, Pakistan and India.

Looking hot to tot: Rihanna sported a tiny bikini and a cut out hot pink dress on holiday yesterday

The singer, who features in a new Armani campaign, seemed pensive as she waded out into the sea in a skin-tight hot pink dress, which she was wearing over a green and black bikini.

She splashed around in knee-deep water while clutching the hand-rolled cigarette, after taking a walk earlier in the day.

The brown papered roll-up looked remarkably similar to a ‘blunt’, which is slang for a marijuana filled cigar. The type favoured and popularised in hip-hop music.

Meanwhile, the singer has been at the centre of rumours she has been secretly meeting up with ex-boyfriend Chris Brown.

The troubled singer, 22, who was convicted of assaulting Rihanna in 2009, are allegedly to have spent time together over the past year.

 

What you smoking? Rihanna has been seen smoking a suspicious-looking cigarette over the past few days while on holiday

A source told Us Weekly: ‘She comes to see him anytime she’s in L.A.

‘They can’t get enough of each other. I don’t see it ending well. Rihanna loves to live dangerously, and talking to and hooking up with Chris is all part of that.’

While Rihanna has declined to comment over the reports, it’s clear she’s got a complicated love situation going on.

On her Twitter page, Rihanna has hit out an her mystery love interest, who appears to have a girlfriend.

She tweeted on Sunday: ‘Cuz of u I’m on some real f**k a n***a s**t!

‘U wanna be my main squeeze n***a, don’t ya?… So what n***a, I’m not tryna hear that s**!’

And on January 3, she was still feeling anxious: ‘How can you lie to her, while u lay with me???…..If you don’t have an answer, you don’t have to answer.

‘Is this LOVE? Is that what it is?….I cud be dreaming or just plain crazy!!!’

The Mail reports only a small number of viewers have complained to Ofcom but of course hold up complaints on Twitter and other social messaging websites to make it look as if hundreds of viewers are offended.

From the Daily Mail

Hundreds of Corrie viewers complain about shocking smack scene as schoolgirl is slapped on the legs by her mother’s lover

• Viewers take to Twitter to express outrage at Owen Armstrong hitting Faye
• Many complaints focus on builder not being related to schoolgirl
• Show’s producers: We certainly do not condone Owen’s actions

By Emily Sheridan

18th January 2012

Coronation Street has sparked a storm of protest from viewers after an episode showed a child being smacked.

Hundreds took to web forums and Twitter to express outrage at the scene which features Faye being hit by her adoptive mother’s boyfriend Owen Armstrong.

The builder, played by Ian Puleston-Davies, loses his temper after the ten-year-old schoolgirl deliberately poisons the  fish in his pond.

He is seen whacking 10-year-old Faye, played by Ellie-Louise Leach, on the back of the legs as she winches in pain.

Controversial: Owen Armstrong (Ian Puleston-Davies) goes to slap Faye (Ellie Leach) in a scene from Coronation Street

Punishment: The 10-year-old winches in pain as Owen strikes her legs

Monday’s episode attracted 9.5million viewers and has led to a small number of complaints to Ofcom and ITV.

But many more fans used social networks and blogging sites to express their disgust at show’s producers.

One web forum poster described the character’s actions as ‘psychotic’.

Another said: ‘He was really laying into her, or that was the writers’ intent.’

Since the Children’s Act came into effect in January 2005, parents are legally allowed to smack their children.

But use of ‘excessive force’, which cause visible bruising, graze, scratches, minor swellings or cuts, could result in assault charges.

The child-smacking seen left some views feeling uncomfortable, while others complained to Ofcom

One Twitter user did not believe that there was anything to complain about

The furore appears to be a sign of the times. Even a few years ago, similar scenes are unlikely to have raised as many eyebrows.

It also reflects that the issue of smacking children is still a huge taboo in society.

Coronation Street, along with other prime-time soaps, regularly shows much more violent and controversial scenes – albeit featuring adults – which generate little comment.

These have recently included the rape of Carla Connor by her partner Frank Foster, a hostage drama which ended with escaped prisoner Tony Gordon shooting dead his cellmate and an explosive tram crash which left several characters dead.

Since joining the soap last January, Faye has been something of a problem child and has been seen trying to disrupt her mother’s budding romance with Owen.

The focus of many complaints is that Owen is not the child’s father but the boyfriend of her mother Anna Windass, played by Debbie Rush.

While many objected to the actual smack, some critics said it would have only been appropriate for her mother  to discipline her in such a way.

One Twitter user wrote: ‘Owen should never smacked Faye as she wasn’t his child but she deserved a smack.’

Staff from children’s charity the NSPCC have said they are glad the show’s producers have raised the debate.

Troublemaker: Owen chastised Faye after she poisoned his fish pond

Spokesman Phillip Noyes told Mail Online: ‘We all accept that parents have to be in charge and that clear and consistent boundaries are essential for children and young people to have a secure and happy childhood.

‘But evidence shows that smacking is not an effective form of punishment and sets a bad example, especially for children who have a troubled past as in this storyline.

‘It teaches children that violence is an answer and it undermines the trusting relationship between a child and their carer. Young people tell us it leaves them feeling frightened and confused but often doesn’t actually deter them from repeating what they were smacked for.

‘And for a minority of bad parents who go well beyond smacking and seriously harm their children, it is all too often used as an excuse to social services, the police and the courts.’

The plotline was announced in November but it sparked little controversy at the time.

Today, the show’s producers said it did not condone Owen’s actions, adding that that follow-up storyline made this clear.

Anna is expected to end the relationship over the incident.

A Coronation Street spokesman said: ‘We most certainly don’t condone Owen’s actions – as will be seen by the ramifications of the slap, and the effect it has on his relationship.’

An ITV spokesman said: ‘The episode and subsequent episodes do not condone the slap and it has far reaching ramifications for the character of Owen.

‘That said we have no problem with sparking a healthy debate on this issue.’

Actor Puleston-Davies said he and scriptwriters had approached the smacking issue cautiously.
He said: ‘I think any controversial subject handled in the right way is good controversy not bad controversy.

‘I know it was talked about within the writing group and with the producers at length, so they were very careful.

‘I was very aware that I wanted to go through the script with a fine-tooth comb.

‘From the moment it was suggested, they took it very carefully and very slowly, so it took a long time to reach the script stage, and rightly so. I’m happy with the finished result.’

Ructions: The ramifications of the slap will lead Anna Windass (Debbie Rush) to end her relationship with Owen

MP John Hemming said that he agreed with smacking as a form of punishment.

He told the Mirror: ‘There is a line when it comes to these things, and the main thing is what is best for the child.

‘Parents are best placed to decide what is best. Smacking, when used responsibly, can work in the child’s best interests.’

He added: ‘How can you make it illegal for a parent to slap their child on the wrist? The Government should think carefully before making any changes.’

In a 2010 survey by the Children’s Society to identify the biggest risks for children aged six to 15, just a third of adults believed slapping children as a standard punishment was ‘high risk’ to their welfare.

The Mail claim hundreds of viewers took to social messaging websites to vent their outrage. But how do they know this? Did they count the number of people complaining?

It does though seem a cynical attempt to push the NSPCC’s anti-smacking agenda. Soap operas have now become the agenda pushers and publicity machines of various already well publicised charities.

Soap writers include controversial issues in their plots under the guise of “raising awarness” of important issues such as domestic violence and child abuse. But these issues are used so often by soap operas in order to increase ratings that viewers have become tired of them.

The letter asked what 30, 000 children who don’t have access to clean water may think when seeing a cot that costs $30, 000.

It got me thinking, what has Beyonce and her husband spending $30, o00 on a cot for their baby got to do with their thousands of poor children not having access to clean water? The answer I came up with was…absoloutly nothing.

The reader was suggesting that 30, 000 poor children with no clean water to wash or drink with would be outraged that a pop star and her rapper husband have spent $30, 000 on a gold cot for their newborn child. This would imply that those children would somehow think it’s disgusting that one child could get a cot that cost $30, 000 whilst they have no clean water to drink.

This would imply that they think the two are somehow connected. That because Beyonce and her husband have spent thousands of Dollars on a cot that is the cause of thousands of children not having clean water.

But why would a pop star spending thousands of Dollars on an item be the cause of children not having clean water? Even more so what’s that got to do with the wider poverty of poor children?

It implies that one rich pop star and her husband spending thousands of Dollars on something for their child is somehow depriving from those less fortunate children the world over. This implies that the “spoiling” of children of rich celebrities is somehow impoverishing further the children of the very poor.

But why?

Well this is a demonstration of the viewpoint that celebrities, pop stars, film stars and footballers, spending their money on expensive items for themselves or their families is depriving everyone else, especially the poor from something they need.

Famous millionaire footballers and their girlfriends who splash out their cash on big lavish weddings are berated for blowing their cash on a massive wedding when there are people struggling to make ends meet and people starving on the streets. This portrays a situation where the lavish spending of millionaire footballers is someway linked to ordinary people struggling to make ends meet and people starving or being homeless.

But of course the poverty of those who struggle to make ends meet, feed themselves or find themselves homeless are rooted in things far wider than the spending habits of pop stars, film stars and footballers.

Some argue it’s offensive and obscene for famous celebrities to blow their money on materalistic items like massive homes and golden cots when so many others suffer from financial hardship.

It is seen as a kind of slap in the face to those finding it hard to pay for the basics, such as food, heating and clothing to see footballers or pop stars throwing their money around spending it on things which are seen as pointless non-essential items.

But anger should be saved for those people who cause such hardship and poverty in the first place. The bosses, the politicians and the bankers. They are more offensive and obscene because they have caused people to struggle to pay their bills and feed and cloth themselves and their children.

And of course whilst pop stars, footballers and actors get a rolocking for spending their wealth on lavish expensive weddings and items the Royal Family are not subjected to the same scrutiny. As was demonstrated by the way the lavish and expensive Royal Wedding last April was welcomed by the tabloid media and politicians alike.

If Prince William and Kate Middleton spent £30, 000 on a cot for their newborn baby there would be very few voicies decrying them for spending so much money on their baby when thousands of children are starving or don’t have access to clean water.

Beyonce and Jay Z, disregarding whether one likes them as performers or even people have earned their money and pulled themselves out of poverty to make a more than good life for themselves and their child. If they want to spend their money on a gold cot for their kid is it really the end of the world?

I say no!

From Christian Voice:

Shares dive as Tesco sales slump

Yet Melanie Phillips makes out Cameron is being battered by the “sensitivity police.

From the Daily Mail:

Tourette’s and how David Cameron fell victim to the ‘sensitivity police’

By Melanie Phillips

 9th January 2012

Oh dear. The latest victim of Britain’s new ‘sensitivity inquisition’ is no less than someone whose antennae are most exquisitely attuned to the niceties of political correctness — the Prime Minister himself. 

David Cameron saw his attempt to set the political agenda by calling for a ‘fairer’ Britain completely overshadowed by a row over his throwaway jibe at Ed Balls.

Mr Cameron likened the shadow chancellor’s abusive gestures during Prime Minister’s Questions to Tourette’s syndrome, whose sufferers are characterised by uncontrollable tics and profane language.

This calls to mind the fuss over George Osborne’s throwaway joke more than five years ago that suggested that Gordon Brown had autism. 

Both remarks displayed that effortless public school cruelty that has caused Mr Cameron to be compared with Flashman, the bully in Tom Brown’s Schooldays. 

The PM is under fire for likening Ed Ball’s gestures to those exhibited by sufferers of Tourette’s syndrome

Nevertheless, the outraged reaction in each case was surely more than a touch over the top. After all, the targets of these insults were clearly Ed Balls and Gordon Brown — and no one else. Yet it was sufferers from Tourette’s or autism who were held, instead, to have been grievously traduced. 

This row reminds me of the time I once used the term ‘schizophrenic’ in the way it is often colloquially used to denote someone who veers between one opinion and another — only to be bawled out by the father of a child suffering from schizophrenia.

Hypocrisy

The popular association of this illness with being ‘in two minds’ was a shocking prejudice, he stormed, as it actually involved a wholesale breakdown of brain function.

Well, I was sorry to have spoken so loosely and trodden on such a corn — but did my colloquialism really merit quite such an affronted response?

The truth is that we are living today in a very strange culture, marked by a bewildering combination of hyper-sensitivity, gross hypocrisy and rank absurdity.

To put it another way, while many now feel forced to censor what they say for fear of being pilloried for one thought-crime or another, others manage to get away with vile remarks — while still others are attacked for the use of words whose meaning has been wrenched out of context.

Political correctness gone mad: Cameron’s comments were clearly only meant for Ed Balls and Gordon Brown

For example, Labour MP Diane Abbott was accused of racism last week for having tweeted that ‘white people love playing “divide and rule”.’ 

But this was absurd. White people do love dividing and ruling — especially the British, who during the Empire thought they had elevated this to an art form.

Similarly, the loud-mouthed TV presenter Jeremy Clarkson detonated yet another race row at the weekend after comparing the sight of Olympic synchronised swimmers with the ‘upside-down hats’ of the 21 Chinese cockle-pickers who were killed in rising tides in Morecambe Bay, Lancashire, in 2004.

He was promptly attacked by anti-racism groups who said he had ‘no right to offend communities in this country who live and work here and provide more to Britain than he does’.

His remark, it has to be said, was as gratuitously tasteless as it was bizarre. But racist? His fatuous comparison surely caused offence not on account of the ethnicity of those Chinese cockle-picklers but because it insulted their memory as the fatal victims of a horrible tragedy.

Meanwhile, the world of football has been engulfed by one racism furore after another. Last month, the England football captain John Terry was charged with racially abusing QPR player Anton Ferdinand by allegedly calling him a ‘****ing black ****’.

Last week, the Liverpool striker Luis Suarez was banned by the FA for eight matches after repeatedly calling a Senegalese-born Manchester United player a ‘negro’. And during the Liverpool/Oldham FA Cup tie at Anfield last Friday evening, an oaf in the crowd called player Tom Adeyemi a ‘******g black b******’.

Some may wonder whether abusing someone as a ‘****ing black b******’ is really worse than someone being abused as a ‘****ing b*******’.

Well, personally, as a Jew, I find it rather worse to be abused as a ‘Jewish bigot’ rather than a mere ‘bigot’ (though, distressingly, I am vilified as both fairly regularly). This is because being abused as a Jew or a black person is more devastating because the abuse relates to a person’s unalterable identity. 

On the other hand, all such abuse crucially depends on the context in which these things are said. Yet our culture of hyper-sensitivity now seems to mean that virtually any disobliging comment uttered by a white person about black people, or vice versa, is automatically deemed to be racist.

Balance

It’s hard to decide whether this is evidence of mass hysteria or mass imbecility. Of course, it is right that true prejudice — as demonstrated by the terrible murder of Stephen Lawrence — should be deemed wholly unacceptable. But it is also  necessary to display a sense of proportion and balance.

Once upon a time, that line was marked by the law against incitement to racial hatred. Singling out a person or a group for such incitement of hatred on account of their unavoidable racial identity was not just considered unacceptable in itself.

The concern was that it created a climate that encouraged acts of racial violence. Yet such was the parallel concern not to infringe freedom of expression that very few prosecutions were brought under this law.

Diane Abbot caused a scandal when she tweeted that ‘white people love playing ‘divide and rule”

Now, however, freedom of expression is forgotten. Prejudice has become the cardinal sin because protecting someone’s feelings now trumps all.

As a result, the feelings of hurt suffered by self-designated ‘victim’ groups are interpreted as a criminal offence. The problem with this approach is that it leads straight from the decent desire to eradicate true prejudice to the politically correct tyranny of stamping out any view with which those in authority  may disagree. Moreover, the culture of political correctness dictates that only groups who are deemed powerless can be considered victims of prejudice.

Thus people who make remarks which offend Muslims or gay people, for example, may find the police investigating them for ‘Islamophobia’ or ‘homophobia’. Yet, on the other hand, Christians find themselves being insulted all the time with no redress.

In the interests of driving out prejudice, we are now in a position where language has been progressively censored. So, for example, the word ‘retarded’ was changed to ‘mentally handicapped’, which, in turn, also came to be considered insulting and so was replaced by ‘differently abled’. Similarly, ‘ethnic minority’ was bafflingly replaced by the new PC-speak term ‘minority ethnic’.

Cruelty

Insulting: Jeremy Clarkson’s many outlandish comments have done little harm to his career

In other words, we have progressed seamlessly from insult to euphemism, with truth and a sense of proportion being mislaid somewhere along the way.

Meanwhile, true offensiveness, cruelty and humiliation are considered acceptable on TV reality shows such as Big Brother or I’m A Celebrity… Get Me Out Of Here!

Jeremy Clarkson, despite all the uproar he creates, is still handsomely rewarded for his consistently tasteless patter. And despite the gross anti-white racism, violence and offensiveness of rap music, our arbiters of taste and decency  — in their wisdom — simply ignore it.

So why is it that while causing offence, in some cases, has become the greatest sin that can be committed, in others its practitioners are richly rewarded? The answer is that by trying to stamp out certain attitudes, political correctness creates a culture of public bullying.

By affording ‘victim groups’ immunity from the possibility of being prejudiced themselves, it gives them carte blanche to abuse and intimidate others.

For example, rappers are considered part of a protected black culture in a way that poor old Diane Abbott, who plays the mainstream political game, is not. Rappers, therefore, are beyond criticism and are given licence to abuse.

This bullying culture has become all-pervasive. Whether on Twitter (that new vehicle of the PC hate-mongers) or on reality TV, which makes money out of cynically breaking all boundaries of taste and decency, it all amounts to an invidious abuse of power.

To such hypocrisy and inconsistencies, however, our society has become (if  this is not an insult to the chorally impaired) tone deaf.

Mad Mel reckons that rappers are part of a “protected black culture” and are therefore beyond criticism.

Rappers and members of what she refers to as “victim groups” can get away with saying whatever the like and being nasty and offensive about anyone and get away with it whilst the rest of us cannot and if we did we’d have the “sensitivity police” come after us and give us a dam good drubbing for it!

Yeah yeah yeah blah blah blah!

Mel claims that the “anti-white racism” and offensiveness of rap music doesn’t even raise our arbiturs of taste and decency to bat an eyelid.

Is there actually any mainstream rap music that contains racism against white people? If so the Daily Mail which have appointed themselves our arbiturs of taste and decency would be saying something about it!

Melanie Philllips has always been adament that minority groups have some kind of special privilage where they can say and behave in anyway they please, even if it’s against the law, and the lefty liberal politically correct types of who apparently make our laws let them get away with it through “fear” of being branded as racist, sexist or phobic.

This generally represents the Daily Mail’s and the entire right-wing media’s viewpoint that minorities get preferential treatment to the so called “majority” and further perpetuate their “us and them” portrayal of society.

This does far more harm to race relations than any rapper could do!

Of course!

From the Daily Mail:

Sex toys for sale at Boots, prominently displayed close to healthcare products in full view of children

By Christopher Leake, Mail On Sunday Home Affairs Editor

 8th January 2012

Boots has been criticised by parents for selling sex toys in its shops, within full view of children.

The chemists’ chain has prominently displayed a range of unpackaged sex aids close to healthcare products such as reading glasses, blood-pressure monitors and pregnancy testing kits.

Customers have to walk past the sex aids in order to shop for shampoo, deodorants, toothpaste and sandwiches.

The range also includes a number of other sex aids which are on full display

Out of the box: About 1,200 Boots stores offer sex toys in displays such as this in Dartford, Kent

The sale of sex toys – recently launched in 1,200 of the firm’s 2,500 UK stores – is a far cry from the herbal medicines made by Boots founder John Boot in Nottingham  in 1849.

Boots insisted last night that customers had told the company they wanted to buy the range of sex toys – designed to improve ‘sexual wellbeing’. But the retail giant is facing a backlash.

Families said they were ‘shocked’ and ‘disgusted’ that the sex aids were on show, removed from packaging. By contrast, the Ann Summers sex-shop chain serves boxed sex aids only to those aged 18 or over in designated separate sections of its stores.

Customers are said to be horrified by the move

At Boots in Dartford, Kent, three types of sex aid were on display last week and placed on a shelf low enough for children to see.

Grandmother Julie Burgess, 43, a retail manager from Greenhithe, said: ‘I am appalled. It’s completely inappropriate. I’m shocked that a store like Boots is selling sex toys, let alone displaying them so openly.

‘My two children are grown up now, but I’ve got a little granddaughter and I certainly wouldn’t want to be walking her round Boots and having to explain what a sex toy is. If Boots really wants to sell them, they should be kept behind the counter with the medicines.’

And Scott Millins, 26, from Gravesend said: ‘It’s quite disgusting. I’ve got a nine-month-old baby boy and a three-year-old son and it wouldn’t be a problem now, but when my young boys are older, that’s definitely not the sort of thing I would want them to see. Children shouldn’t know about that sort of thing until they’re grown up and in a relationship with someone. It’s really not very good  at all.’

The display was headed ‘Sexual Wellbeing’ in large lettering with the words ‘Help you and your partner have a more positive sexual relationship’. Beneath each of the sex toys on display was a card detailing the toys’ features. Children passing the display for the £34.99 Durex Play Dream were able to read intimate details of how the product could be used. The sex toy earns purchasers 136 Boots loyalty points.

The Durex Play Discover, which costs the same and earns the same points, says it is ‘designed to inspire you to play and sensually explore your partner’s body from tip to toe’.

In contrast Ann Summers has designated areas for their sexual aids which are boxed and only sold to over 18s

The cheaper Play Delight, at £9.99, with 36 Boots points, was on offer with a free £10 eye-test voucher.

Former Conservative MP Ann Widdecombe said: ‘Boots, which is a family store – and a very popular one at that – should adopt standards that  Ann Summers have been happy to adopt. That says it all.’

The sex toys are a dramatic change of policy for Boots. Seven years ago, the company scrapped plans to sell sex aids alongside toiletries over fears that stocking them could damage its brand. Yesterday, Boots said it had received four complaints.

A spokeswoman said: ‘We believe a healthy love life can improve overall health and wellbeing and our customers have told us that they would like to buy these products from us.

‘Approximately 1,200 stores stock these products and we have worked hard to ensure they are discreetly packaged and merchandised.

‘There are no laws restricting the sale of these products. However, if someone who looks under 16 tries  to buy such a product, Boots staff would use their discretion to decide whether it is suitable for them.’

So bascially someone from the Mail has gone into a Boots store somewhere, found some sex toys on display then gone into the street and found a few random passers by and asked them what they think about Boots selling sex toys on fulll display of children and then put up the most shocked, appaled and disgusted quotes.

The Mail claims families said they were “shocked and disgusted” about the sex toys being on such prominent display. To represent “families” they put up a quote from one Grandmother.

Of course right next to this story about inappropriateness being seen by kids is the following….

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2083811/TOWIEs-Chloe-Sims-nearly-falls-bandage-dress-boozy-bar-crawl.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2083671/Celebrity-Big-Brother-2012-Kristina-Karissa-Frankie-glimpse-life-inside-Playboy-Mansion.html

So what do “families” think of that eh?

From the Dail Mail:

BBC slammed over ‘freak’ sex show that follows teenager having bikini wax to prepare for losing virginity

• Programme includes F-word and talk about oral sex
• ‘It’s irresponsible and exploitative’ says TV watchdog
• Don’t screen it, demands Ann Widdecombe

By Craig Mackenzie

 8th January 2012

Presenter: Cherry Healey who reads an intimate excerpt from her diary

A BBC documentary about teenage sex which follows a girl hoping to lose her virginity has been branded a ‘freak show’.

The hour-long programme, which includes the F-word and discussions about oral sex and sex aids, is due to be screened on BBC3 on Thursday.

But the Corporation is under pressure not to screen Cherry Healey: Like A Virgin, which is scheduled to go out immediately after the 9pm watershed.

‘The show is ­terrible, almost a freak show,’ Vivienne Pattison, of TV watchdog Mediawatch, told the Sunday Express. ‘It’s also irresponsible, inappropriate, disturbing and even exploitative towards some of those featured in it.

‘For a programme clearly aimed at a teenage audience it is extremely irresponsible not to include any ­discussion of safe sex.’

Mediawatch believes there is a danger the Ofcom code could be flouted by using material harmful to the ‘moral development’ of under 18-year-olds.

Former minister Ann Widdecombe has joined Ms Pattison in condemning the programme, which is part of the BBC’s Sex Season.

She said: ‘The BBC should not screen this programme. It seems to me that they are just trying to set new boundaries and to do this at 9pm when a lot of young people will still be up is horrendous.’

Shamed: Russell Brand and Jonathan who had to make an apology to Andrew Sachs over an offensive prank phone call

Ms Pattison, who is to make an official complaint to the BBC and Ofcom, claimed the show was ‘prurient and exploitative’.

She added: ‘It is extraordinary that in following a teenager getting ready to lose her virginity, a bikini wax is filmed as an essential part of her preparation but condoms are not even mentioned.

Ban it: Ann Widdecombe has urged the BBC not to screen the show

‘The programme promises “essential truths amongst the tales of sex and debauchery, to see if losing your virginity is about more than just ­having sex for the first time”.

‘However, it delivers an inconclusive mix of titillating detail and voyeuristic confessional.’

The BBC was fined £150,000 for breaching Ofcom’s code when Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand used offensive language during prank calls to Andrew Sachs on Radio 2.

The controversial programme begins with Healey, 31, a former Cheltenham Ladies’ College pupil, reading from her diary when she was 16. She reads: “I’m going to **** Ed senseless.’

It introduces a young man, Dan, from a jazz band who shows her a condom described as a ‘willy hat’ and jokes with her about sexual positions.

She then hosts a discussion with a group of young men, one of whom claims he had oral sex with a woman outside McDonalds.

Beth Taylor, a 17-year-old virgin, is filmed having a bikini wax before going on holiday.

Ms Pattison said: “She is packed off to Lanzarote to lose her virginity without even a condom.’

Ms Widdecombe told the Sunday Express: ‘It is difficult to see how parents and teachers have any chance at all of getting young people to behave responsibly if this is the sort of stuff the BBC is promoting.

‘It will not help with efforts to reduce teenage pregnancy rates in Britain, which are the highest in Europe.’

A Church of England spokesman claimed the programme was likely to anger people who believed that sexual activity should be confined within a faithful, heterosexual marriage.

A BBC spokeswoman said: ‘Cherry Healey: Like A Virgin adheres to BBC editorial guidelines and is scheduled appropriately with a strong language warning prior to transmission.’

The Mail couldn’t be bothered to cover this themselves as the’ve lifted it from the Sunday Express.

In the Express’ story Ann Widecombe is quoted as saying that this programme will further encourage teenagers to lose their virginity at an earlier age. Clearly demonstrating the right-wing middle England belief that children and teenagers are brainless idiots who copy whatever they see on TV or in popular entertainment.

Viv Pattison and Ann Widecombe should ask themselves why do broadcasters make programmes like this?

The answer, which they of course are completly ignorant of is to provoke excactly this kind of moral indignation and frothing at the mouth with outrage in order to get viewers tuning in to see what all the outrage is about.

Our self appointed moral guardians continue to do a brilliant job of giving controversial shows free publicity!

This has been taken by the right-wing press as Abbott saying that taxi drivers refuse to pick up black passangers and that taxi drivers are all racist.

Of course she never actually said that. She was saying that she that she is dubious about black people who say they’ve never experienced racism and asked them if they’ve tried hailing a taxi. This of course could be taken to imply that black people would find it hard to get a taxi because there are a lot of white taxi drivers who will not pick them up and that is racism.

Whether this is true or not is debatable but it didn’t look like Abbott was saying that taxi drivers routinely refuse to pick up black passangers as the tabloid press have claimed. Nevertheless there has been outrage from taxi drivers groups and Tory MPs with calls for her to be sacked.

The thing about the reaction to her comments from the mainstream media is that it represents once again how the right-wing media are trying to derail the cause of anti-racism by claiming that black people and people from other minorities are just as racist as white racists and that there is a tide of “racism” against white people from minority groups which knowone is acknowledging let alone doing anything about.

The usual “If a white person had said this about black people they would be publically flogged and then sacked!” cry goes up which is designed to make out people from ethnic minorities are apparently in some kind of super privilaged position where they have the freedom to say whatever they like about any social group without ever being taken to task for it.

Like right-wing Daily Mail hacks who whenever some Muslim extremist says something stupid about homosexuals comes across as suddenly all concerned about the feelings of gay people and claims that if a Christian had said the same thing they would have a tun of bricks come down on them.

Once again all this nonscence is to further the right-wing pushing their viewpoint that people from minorities (ethnic or otherwise) live in privilage above the so called “majority” and can quite literally get away with saying or doing anything they like without them being held accountable for their actions.

This in turn feeds the far-right who use this to further their hateful message that white people are now an oppressed minority why black and asian people are the majority getting all the benefits, legal rights and freedoms now being denied to white people.

This week following the verdict in the Stephen Lawrence murder trial the racist group Britain First launched a campaign claiming that white people are victims of racist violence rather than black and asian people.

They spouted that there is a bias in the media in reporting violent murders and attacks on black and asian people by white people and that nobody cares if a white person is violently murdered or attacked by a black or asian person.

This kind of racist hateful rubbish is a consequence of the mainstream media’s constant bleating that people from ethnic minorities are free to say horrible things about white people and can get away with it. Which is of course quite plainly bollocks.

If Diane Abbott had actually gone onto Twitter and said “I think all taxi drivers are racist and they refuse to ever pick up black people because they all hate black people” she would not have got away with saying such a ridiculous thing.

She’s being publically castigated for just saying when she said so God knows what level of vitroil she would face if she had actually said all taxi drivers are racist and don’t pick up black passangers!

The fact is everyone in this country has to bear the consequences of what they say and do, except of course when they are members of the wealthy privilaged elite who run our right-wing tabloid media. They can say and do anything they like and they always seem to get away with. One rule for them eh?

Some tabloid pundits and Tory MPs have branded her comments as “racist” against white people and gone on about how if a white politician had said the same thing about black people (what that black people like to play divide and rule? Who actually thinks that let alone would say it?) there would be outrage and he/she would be sacked.

Of course Abbott’s comments were certainly not racist and were not an attack on all white people as some right-wingers have suggested. They were more a cackhanded way of pointing out how powerful white people like to play divide and rule on issues of race.

However Abbott’s comments have thrown open a debate amongst people on the Left over the issue of so called “reverse racism” and whether white people can be on the victims of racism and racist prejudice and also whether black and people from other ethnic minorities can be racist and guilty of racism.

The general line of thought amongst Left-wing opinion is that white people generally cannot be victims of racism because racism is structural and comes from the top down from society. So white people cannot be victims of racism in the sense that they will not and do not suffer prejudice and discrimination from society based on their colour.

For example they will not and have not been denied education and job oppoprtunities because of their race or skin colour and they will not and have not been subject to racist treatment at the hands of the police (for example white young men are not stopped and searched anywhere near as much as young black men) and the law.

This of course it true. However it’s ridiculous to  say black people and people from other ethnic minorities cannot have racist, bigoted and prejudiced views against people from other races and express those views.

For example the racist view that Eastern Europeans are coming over to this country and “stealing” the jobs of British workers is a view that is being held and expressed by people of all different colours. I myself have heard it expressed by black people.

Of course whilst it’s very unlikely that black people would join up with the BNP in bashing Eastern European workers for coming to this country and “stealing” jobs from British workers some black people have brought into the idea that there needs to be something done about “foriegn” people apparently getting jobs ahead of British people.

When racist ideas such as this are perpetuated by the mainstream media and by politicians it’s very easy for people of all colours and different races to buy into them. When they become the norm and accepted people regardless of race or colour will see them as normal and accept them.

Then of course there is that small number of attention seeking Muslim extremist gobshites who spew out bigotry about Jews, such as the banned fanatical group Muslims Against Crusades. They represent a handful of idiots who shout out the most maddest, crazyest most extreme nonscence mainly in order to attract attention from the tabloid press who are only to happy to give them colloum space to spout their rubbish.

Of course their racism and bigotry is not on the same level of threat of far-right groups like the BNP. The BNP have gained influence in politics and have even won a seat in Europe. Groups like MAC will never gain that level of influence because their views and beliefs appeal to a minority within a minority whilst the BNP’s views and beliefs appeal to a minority within a majority.

Nevertheless the views of morons like Adjem Choudary are racist and bigoted and should be roundly condemed and rejected, which they are. Muslims have rejected his brand of vitroil which targets not just Jews and non-Muslims but some Muslims (those who do not adhere to his views) as well.

Racist views and bigoted/prejudiced opinions can be held by everyone of all races, creeds, colours and religions. To suggest otherwise is seeing things through seriously rose tinted glasses. Diane Abbott’s Twitter comments were not racist but there are racist views out there being spoken by people of all different colours.