Diane Abbot, Chocolate Hob Nobs And More Racism Is Ok As Long As Nobody Swears

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’.

Conservative MP Ann Widdecombe said: ‘The BBC are totally paranoid about some things and utterly dismissive of other incidents.

‘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!

Jimmy Carr Squadie Joke Bollox

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

 

 

 

 

There really should be a single word to describe people who are volubly outraged on behalf of someone they have never met. There is, I suppose, the term “busybodies”, but that doesn’t quite capture the noise they make.

 

 

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!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Griffin On Question Time: Daily Mail….The BBC Are Still A Bunch Of Wet Liberals

For the Daily Mail it’s not enough that the BBC has given air time to an ultra right-wing fascist, they are still a bunch of wet PC Guardian reading liberals. From the Daily Mail: The bare-faced BBC By Daily Mail Comment The BBC’s Mark Thompson said the corporation had no choice but to invite Nick Griffin onto Newsnight Talk about bare-faced hypocrisy. Amidst the furore over the BBC’s decision to invite Nick Griffin on to Question Time, its director general, Mark Thompson, claims that he had no choice because of the Corporation’s ‘central principle of political impartiality’. What a pity that the BBC for years has comprehensively trampled this so-called ‘central principle’ into the dirt. This is an organisation that’s utterly in thrall to the left-wing agenda of the majority of its staff. Until very recently, the BBC systematically censored any debate about immigration into Britain, a nation which, as was revealed yesterday, is on its way to a population of 70million. It also treats global warming with the fervour of a religion, and is so pro-Brussels that even a report commissioned by the BBC itself found that it was hopelessly biased against the Eurosceptic position. It’s an institution that by its very nature promotes alternative lifestyles and minority groups at the expense of traditional values, and it doesn’t have much time for Christianity, capitalism, or the countryside either. Whatever the rights and wrongs of letting Mr Griffin onto Question Time, the BBC can’t pretend that some sacred principle of political impartiality had anything to do with it. “What a pity that the BBC for years has comprehensively trampled this so-called ‘central principle’ into the dirt.” Ah impartialtiy. According to the Daily Mail the BBC isn’t impartial because it gives air time to people with left-wing views. If only the BBC would just let people with the same right-wing xenophobic, homophobic and downright nasty views as the Daily Mail have dominate it’s airwaves. Well they did go someway to doing just that last night. (NB: Mediasnoops does not think the Daily Mail is the same as Nick Griffin or the BNP. But it’s anti-immigration, homophobic and generally nasty intolerant agenda does give succour to those who may give support to the BNP) “It’s an institution that by its very nature promotes alternative lifestyles and minority groups at the expense of traditional values.” Oh how downright awful of the BBC! It actually believes that alternate lifestyles and minority groups should be allowed to be seen on TV and given a say! Oh the BBC are so disgusting! Alternative liftestyles…..gays. Minority groups….blacks and Muslims. Terrible! Traditional values…..hating foriegners and gays. Yes. and it doesn’t have much time for Christianity, capitalism, or the countryside either. Yeah that wonderful capitalism that has seen the world plunged into an economic crises that has seen thousands of people unemployed and the further slip down the ladder of poverty. Chances are most ordinary people don’t have time for capitalism either! Yeah the BBC hates Christanity. All because it gives some airtime to Islam. Yeah! The countryside? Yes, the BBC hates the countryside because it has given a platform for people who think terrorising and killing foxes for “sport” isn’t a very nice thing to do. For fuck’s sake the BBC could invite the leader of the Klu Klux Klan on and the Daily Mail would still say it’s run by lefty, Christanity and “traditonal” values hating liberals! As for Griffin he made a total prat of himself on QT last night, which was what was always going to happen.  If anything it was the shouty shouty placard waving protestors outside who would have won him sympathy from those with a fascist/racist inclination by attempting to break into the studio and try to forciably stop him from speeking.

Griffin on Question Time: BNP defends itself

White upper middle class socialists have become the new self appointed moral guardians who believe we should be protected from the views of the likes of Nick Griffin for our own good. From the BBC: BBC defends BNP move amid protest

Protesters have gathered outside the BBC ahead of Question Time Deputy director general Mark Byford has said it is not the BBC’s role to censor the BNP as criticism mounts ahead of the party’s Question Time appearance. He said the BNP’s Euro vote meant the BBC had to allow it on as part of its “responsibility of due impartiality”. Cabinet minister Peter Hain had asked the BBC to rethink its invitation to the whites-only political party. Ex-London Mayor Ken Livingstone said the BBC would bear moral responsibility for any “spike” in racist attacks. And the Equality and Human Rights Commission said the party’s membership rules were currently illegal and it should not be regarded by the BBC “as equivalent to other political parties which abide by the law”.     Mark Byford defends the BBC’s decision to invite the BNP to appear on Question Time Some protesters have already gathered outside BBC Television Centre in London ahead of the appearance of British National Party leader Nick Griffin, who is a Euro MP, on the hour-long flagship BBC political programme Question Time. Mr Livingstone told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “Unlike any other party, when Nick Griffin speaks, or when they get elected in an area, what we see is an increase in racial attacks. “He comes on, says his bit, does his bit, but for the angry racist it’s the trigger that turns into an attack. And we first saw this when Enoch Powell made his ‘rivers of blood’ speech, there was a huge surge of attacks on black conductors on our buses.” But Mr Byford told the same programme: “They should have the right to be heard, be challenged, and for the public who take part in Question Time and the viewers to make up their own minds about the views of the BNP. It’s not for the BBC to censor and say they can’t be on.” Public’s ‘opportunity’ Mr Hain’s appeal to the BBC Trust to stop Mr Griffin appearing was rejected on Wednesday. The trust said it was a “question of editorial judgement” whether it was appropriate for the BNP to appear.   And BBC director general Mark Thompson, writing in the Guardian newspaper, said the case against having the BNP on Question Time was “a case for censorship”. He said only governments could decide which organisations should be banned from the airwaves. The BBC Trust has asked Mr Thompson to ensure the pre-recorded programme is within BBC guidelines. The decision to allow Mr Griffin, whose party won two seats in the European Parliament in elections in June, has prompted an outcry among anti-fascist protesters. Mr Thompson argued that where organisations were deemed to be “beyond the pale” they were proscribed and/or banned from the airwaves by – and only by – governments. Question Time “carefully” studied the support gained in elections by each of the parties before deciding whom to invite and how frequently, Mr Thompson wrote in the Guardian.   If there is a case for censorship, it should be debated and decided in Parliament. Political censorship cannot be outsourced to the BBC or anyone else Mark Thompson BBC director general   “Question Time is an opportunity for the British public to put questions to politicians of every ideological hue. Politicians from the UK’s biggest parties appear most frequently, but from time to time representatives of parties with many fewer supporters… also take their seats on the stage,” he said. “It is for that reason – not for some misguided desire to be controversial, but for that reason alone – that the invitation has been extended.” Mr Hain, a prominent anti-apartheid activist in his youth, had argued that the decision should be re-examined following a court case about ethnic restrictions on the BNP’s membership rules. The party has agreed to amend its constitution after the Equalities and Human Rights Commission sought an injunction, claiming the BNP was breaking the Race Relations Act by restricting membership to “indigenous Caucasian” people. ‘Wrong platform’ Mr Hain argued that as it had not yet decided to change its constitution it was an “unlawful body” that should not be treated the same as “any other democratically elected body”. But the BBC said the case did not “legally inhibit” them from allowing Mr Griffin on the programme. Speaking later Mr Hain said he objected to the BNP “appearing just like any of the other parties”.   I’m not racist, I’ve got loads of coloured friends but when every second house is African, they’re moving in, got two cars, bought houses, what can you say? Middle aged man, Dagenham “It gives them the legitimacy, the respectability they crave from the BBC and that is what’s shameful in my view.” Labour MP Diane Abbott – the first black woman to be elected to Parliament – told the BBC’s Breakfast programme that Question Time was the wrong platform for the BNP. “If you are a black or Asian viewer tonight and you switch on the television and you see Nick Griffin on Question Time – it’s not a programme that’s going to scrutinise his views, it’s not that sort of programme, it’s politics as entertainment. “The first time I went on Question Time was 22 years ago. People were really pleased – they didn’t remember what I said but they saw a young black woman on Question Time and they thought ‘Now black people are part of the mainstream’. That is the effect the BNP will get tonight, that’s what they want from it, that’s why they’re so thrilled.” Prank calls Downing Street said on Monday that the prime minister did not oppose the BBC decision to have the BNP on the programme, saying Gordon Brown believed it was important to expose what a party stood for.   QUESTION TIME GUESTS Jack Straw, Labour Baroness Warsi, Conservative Chris Huhne, Lib Dem Nick Griffin, BNP Bonnie Greer, Playwright   And Culture Secretary Ben Bradshaw told the BBC’s Media Show on Tuesday that most of the Cabinet did not share Mr Hain’s opposition to Mr Griffin’s appearance. BBC Trustee Richard Tait said: “We have decided it would be wrong for the Trust to intervene in a programme not yet broadcast – even one as plainly controversial as this. “To do so would undermine the editorial independence of the BBC – something we are strongly committed to preserve.” The BBC has also been defended by the comedian Russell Brand, who resigned from Radio 2 after the row over prank phone calls to the actor Andrew Sachs.   FROM THE TODAY PROGRAMME More from Today programme Writing in the Sun newspaper, Brand said his former employers were “right to grant a forum” to the BNP and that the audience should be allowed to draw its own conclusions. BNP spokesman Simon Darby said the party would use its own security to get Mr Griffin safely inside the building and there would be no counter-demonstration by the BNP. And Mr Griffin told The Times: “I thank the political class and their allies for being so stupid. The huge furore that the political class has created around it clearly gives us a whole new level of public recognition.”   “Ex-London Mayor Ken Livingstone said the BBC would bear moral responsibility for any “spike” in racist attacks.” So if a few skinheaded racist morons go out and beat up black or Asian people that will be the fault of the BBC? “Mr Livingstone told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “Unlike any other party, when Nick Griffin speaks, or when they get elected in an area, what we see is an increase in racial attacks. “ In other words if people here the views of Nick Griffin they will want to go out and beat up people from ethnic minority. What we are seeing here is a healthy contempt for the working classes from the political elit and the hardline socialist Left who believe the masses are dumb and stupid and only need to hear a few racist words expressed by morons like Griffin to want to go out and violently attack people from minorities. Just like the pro-censorship Tory right-wing they believe people need to be protected from seeing and hearing things for their own good lest it corrupts them and turns them into violent (and in this case racist) psycos. It’s a bit like the “We need to ban violent video games because they make people violent” argument. As for groups like Unite Against Fascism protesting against Griffin being on Question Time they seem to believe that they are the only ones who know how to deal with racism and that their Oxford/Cambridge educations and fully paid up memberships to the Socialist Workers Party makes their anti-racist credentials better and worthy than everyone else’s.

German School Shootings: Victims Group To Hold “Bin Killer Games” Event

Many of the families of the victims of the recent school shootings in Germany blame violent video games and other media violence for the murders of their loved ones.

We have the greatest sympathy for the pain they have suffered but think they are deapley misguided in scapegoating video games and the media for what happened.

From Game Politics courtesy of the Melon Farmers:

German Group Plans Killer Game Drive

October 14, 2009

A German advocacy group has organized an event designed to get participants to bring their “killer games” to in order to dispose of them in a trash can.

Aktionsbündnis Amoklauf Winnenden, or Action Alliance (loosely translated), has setup the event for this Saturday, October 17 in front of the Stuttgart State Opera. One game tosser will win a signed jersey from the German national soccer team. No word on what will be done with the “donated” games, but presumably they will be smashed or discarded in some way.

GP reader Matthias noted that one image used in the group’s promotion for the event appears to use a modified copy of an image designed to aid Germany in ridding use of the swastika, substituting a CD or DVD for the Nazi symbol.

The Action Alliance is made up, at least partially, of the parents of children slain earlier this year at the awful school shooting incident in Winnenden, Germany, which claimed 16 lives.

Thanks to GP reader Stephan as well.

How about asking people who own guns to come and bin their firearms?

Or calling on German politicians to address the isolation and despair many young people face today.

That would go further in preventing a similar tragedy than binning violent video games and calling for them to be banned.

Viv gets first rent-a-quote as Barmy Brazier calls for Saw VI ban

So local councils should overrule the rulings of the BBFC just because a Tory MP doesn’t like this film?

Bollox!

From The Express:

BAN THIS VIOLENT FILM SAYS TORY MP

 

MP Julian Brazier urges banning Saw VI

Sunday October 11,2009

By Sunday Express Reporter

Have your say(1)

CAMPAIGNERS are urging councils to bar horror film Saw VI as concerns mount over its grisly content.

The certificate 18 movie, which has shocking scenes of murder and torture, is set for release at Halloween.

However local authorities are able to block films and Tory MP Julian Brazier has urged them to ban Saw VI.

He said: “The British Board of Film Classification is passing more and more violent films.

“But councils do have the power to ban such films and I welcome any taking this tough line.”

Vivienne Pattison, director of Mediawatch, called for tighter controls.

She said: “Studies link exposure to film violence with violent behaviour.

“If there is the slightest chance that media violence can cause harm is it worth the risk?”

But Sue Clark of the BBFC said: “We believe adults should be free to choose their own entertainment.”

Despite the BBFC finding no evidence that this film could be harmful Barmy Brazier wants local councils to ban it because he dissaproves of it.

Yet another simple case of “I don’t like it so I don’t want anybody else looking at it”.

Brazier should explain why cinema goers should be blocked from seeing a film which has been legally passed by the BBFC just because he doesn’t like it’s content.

And Vivienne Pattison is nicely following in her predeccesor John Beyer’s footsteps with unfounded and unqualified claims…

“Studies link exposure to film violence with violent behaviour. “

But no studies link film violence with people becoming crazed violent murders.

“If there is the slightest chance that media violence can cause harm is it worth the risk?”

In other words we should ban Saw VI because there may be the slightest chance that someone who watches it could turn into a psycotic killer and go around murdering people.

Yeah right!

BBC get tough on swearing (but not racism)

It seems the BBC is more bothered with appeasing Daily Mail reading middle England on swearing than dealing with the racism of Anton Du Beck.

From the Daily Mail:

BBC bosses pledge to take tougher line on swearing

By Paul Revoir
07th October 2009

• Comments (25)
• Add to My Stories

 

Tougher rules on swearing before and after the watershed will be unveiled by the BBC today.

Editorial guidelines will be published which are expected to call for a much stronger need to justify bad language on the corporation’s programmes.

They are also expected to call for stricter rules on adhering to the watershed, and for warnings before programmes when swearing or potentially offensive content is being broadcast.

The new editorial guidelines have been prompted by the Sachsgate scandal involving Russell Brand, left, and Jonathan Ross

The rules, from the governing body the BBC Trust, will herald a period of tougher regulation at the corporation after years of criticism over offensive content.

 

 

More…

• Boris v Paxo: How Johnson turned the tables on Newsnight attack dog in clashes cut out by the BBC

 

The guidelines have been drawn up in response to the Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand answerphone scandal.

For the first time the BBC Trust will also ask the public to have its say on today’s plans.

In theory, public responses could force the trustees to toughen the rules even further.

It is understood the rules will target the three strongest swear words in the English language.

They will say these words must not be used other than in exceptional circumstances before the watershed.

The wide-ranging guidelines will also outline the BBC’s ‘values and standards’.

They range from how programmes should deal with ‘phone-in and text votes’ to ‘ political controversy’ and ‘offence’.

The BBC has been hit by a string of high-profile editorial lapses in recent years.

In 2007, BBC1 controller Peter Fincham resigned from the BBC after a misleadingly edited trailer showed the Queen storming out of a photo shoot.

Last year the controller of Radio 2, Lesley Douglas, resigned after the Brand and Ross scandal.

An internal BBC email leaked yesterday said the rules will be finalised by ‘next spring’.

A BBC Trust spokesman declined to comment.

Nothing from new Mediawatch UK director Vivianne Pattison on this.

Come on Viv, John Beyer would have been right on to a story like this.

Maybe she’s still settling in.

Meanwhile the complaints about the Anton Du Beck Stricley Come Dancing racist comment to his dancing partner Laila Rouass have been increasing.

Just like the Brand/Ross/Sachs furore hundreds of people have been phoning in to complain about something they’ve never seen or heard themselves and just r ead about in the tabloids.

Yet the Daily Mail and their Tory friends have been silent.

No editorials saying that Du Beck should be sacked and no Tory politicians wheeled out to condem the BBC and demanding that heads should roll.

Some will argue that the difference here is that what Du Beck did was not broadcast. But would the Mail not have been outraged about the Ross/Brand affair had they done what they did off air?

Of course not.

Ever since the Brand/Ross/Sachs outrage the Mail have been tying themselves up in nots over the levels of swearing and “filth” on TV.

But racism isn’t a problem.

Nope,  as long as there is no swearing.

 

 

Stricly Come Dancing race row

Mediasnoops has been well aware of the racism controversy on Strictly Come Dancing involving Anton Du Beck who said that his partner Laila Rouass looked like a paki in an off camera altercation.

We are not going to bother re-publishing the news stories as most of you have probably seen them already.

But we notice how the outrage from the Daily Mail is defening by it’s silence.

And where are the Tory politicians, Mediawatch UK and other self appointed moral guardians demanding heads on plates?

Remember people racism is ok as long as nobody swears and there’s no nudity!

Scots gov unconvinced of need for further lads mags restrictions

As we have said before the anti-lads mags campaign is less about protecting children and more to about feminist groups trying to get things they don’t like banned. From the BBC courtesy of the Melon Farmers: More talks over lads’ mags agreed

Concerns have been raised about images on show The Scottish government has agreed to further discussion with MSPs over calls to restrict the display of so-called “lads’ mags” on newsagent shelves. Scottish Women Against Pornography said the publications featured sexually graphic images and should be “screen sleeved” away from children’s eyes. But Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill told MSPs clear evidence was needed on the extent of the problem. Holyrood’s petitions committee is considering the restriction calls. The Scottish government has remained unconvinced of the need for a government crackdown, saying it would cost extra cash to enforce. ‘Existing scheme’ Ministers have also pointed out the National Federation of Retail Newsagents had drawn up a voluntary code of practice and they were unaware of any evidence that a large numbers of newsagents ignored it. Mr MacAskill told the committee on Tuesday it would be naive to suggest there was 100% adherence to the scheme. “What we require to work out is, what is the extent of the problem, what is the basis of the information we have, which clearly has to be more than anecdotal, and what then is the solution,” he said. “Is it improving the existing scheme, or is it legislation and that’s a matter that we’re more than happy to discuss and engage on with the committee.” The display of obscene or indecent material, such as pornographic magazines, is already restricted by law. The issue over how lads mags are displayed is a red herring. The anti-lads mags campaigners want them banned completly and having them covered up and put on the top shelf is one step away from that. Most of the groups campaigning against lads mags believe that high street newsagents and retailers should not be selling them at all. Mediasnoops believes that any regulation of lads mags should be based on evidence of actual harm rather than just the personal offence taken against the magazines by groups like SWAP.

Cameron swearing causes no outrage

Well definetly not from the Daily Mail. Unsurprising as he is the leader of the Tories.

From the Daily Mail:

Cameron’s on-air profanity leaves him looking, er, a twit: Tory leader forced to apologise twice

By Ian Drury
 30th July 2009

David Cameron was forced to apologise yesterday after swearing on live radio.

The Tory leader risked causing offence by using the word ‘twat’ during an interview, then compounded the faux pas by saying the public were ‘pissed off’ with MPs.

The remarks came as Mr Cameron was grilled by Absolute Radio presenter Christian O’Connell yesterday morning.

 

Slip-up: David Cameron said ‘twat’ during a radio interview

Sources close to the Conservative chief said he had used the words inadvertently.

But there was speculation in Westminster that he had deliberately sworn to try to sound down-to-earth.

The first profanity came as he explained why he did not use Twitter, the social networking service. He said: ‘The trouble with Twitter is the instantness of it  -  too many twits might make a twat.’

 

 

More…

• You twitter! Civil servant’s instructions to ministers on how to send 140-character messages are 20 pages long
• No10 dismisses Mandy’s calls for live presidential-style debate between Brown and Cameron
• PM would ‘not have a problem’ with live presidential-style debate between him and Cameron, says Mandelson

 

The comment was greeted with laughter in the studio, with host Mr O’Connell saying: ‘That’s fantastic.’

Shortly afterwards, the Tory leader swore again as he discussed the effects of the expenses scandal. He said: ‘The public are rightly, I think, pissed off  – sorry, I can’t say that in the morning – angry with politicians.’

Light-hearted chat: A relaxed-looking Tory leader with Absolute Radio presenter Christian O’Connell in the studio this morning

 

Time out: Mr Cameron and his wife Samantha in Cornwall last year. This year he and his family are going on holiday to France

Tory aides later stressed that he had apologised immediately for the second slip, and pointed out that ‘twat’ was not defined as a swear word by radio watchdogs.

Mr Cameron attempted to play down his gaffe, saying: ‘If I’ve caused any offence I obviously regret that. I was doing a radio interview and I’m sure that people will understand that.’

Mr O’Connell revealed that Mr Cameron’s press secretary Gabby Bertin ‘leapt out of her skin’ following the remark. Describing an off-air exchange between the pair, Mr O’Connell told how Mr Cameron had said to Miss Bertin: ‘That seemed to go OK’ and she replied: ‘Yeah, apart from the language.’

On being told that he had used the term ‘twat’, Mr Cameron said: ‘That’s not a swear word.’ Miss Bertin replied: ‘It is.’

Within minutes of his swearing gaffe, Mr Cameron found himself under siege from Twitter users across the world. His insult quickly became one of the most popular topics of discussion among the Twitter community.

Two years ago, Mr Cameron launched a campaign to reverse the breakdown in society, saying swearing in public should be as ‘unacceptable as racism’.

● The word twat is one to be used with caution. While in many parts of the country it is used as a substitute-for ‘twit’, in others it is considered highly offensive and vulgar.

Last year, children’s writer Dame Jacqueline Wilson was forced to remove the word from one of her books following a complaint by the mother of a young fan.

  

Had it been a popular comedian swearing on live radio the Daily Mail would be frothing at the mouth with outrage over “foul mouthed” comedians filling the airwaves with “filth”.

And had it been a popular comedian swearing on live radio on the BBC the Daily Mail would have wheeled out a Tory politician and given Vivieene Pattison her first rent-a-quote opportunity of  her Mediawatch UK directorship to condem the Beeb for allowing swear words to be heard by young people and ask why it’s any wonder that kids are going around swearing all the time.

But as it’s David Cameron it’s ok.