Forum Topic

3 cheers for Auntie?

How do we feel about the Beeb's decision to show "Jerry Springer the Opera" tomorrow in spite of all the complaints and protests? Personally I don't see how you can complain if you are only going by what other people are saying and have no personal knowledge, if we were all to take to the streets protesting everytime the BBC (or any other channel for that matter)broadcast something someone didn't approve of there'd be a permanent camp outside the TV centre.

Vanessa Smith ● 7460d87 Comments

PhilThanks for the clarification. I don't agree though because if I hold a strong personal belief on any subject, I have the ultimate right to hold that belief. That others might not share my belief does not make my belief wrong. I might believe in socialism and others might believe in capitalism but that doesn't make my belief in socialism wrong, just wrong in their mind.

Gareth Evans ● 7445d

Anne  Thank you for your posting. I assume that you are relating to the article titled Racism and religion - partners in crime? The article was written by Tim Unsworth and featured on Salt of the Earth website. The Salt of the Earth website is run by Claretian Publishing which I understand is owned by the Claretian Missionaries, a Catholic order. The link to the article was provided to highlight the very real link, which existed at that time between racism, and religion which I consider the article, did admirably. That you found the article unpleasant and misleading is somewhat unfortunate. However, facts are facts and the facts are that the article summarises recorded historical facts that cannot and should not be written off simply because the facts may be unpalatable to some, many years after the actual events took place.  It appears that you have missed the point of the entire thread and my postings if you assume that I dislike any group, simply based on what they believe. This is not the case. If you had read the thread, you should have realised that the fundamental issue has been that of upholding the freedom of expression, the freedom of expression to question beliefs and the freedom of expression to relate these through Jerry Springer The Opera and through other means. Throughout my postings I have endeavored to point out that in a civilized society, views are valid but that no individual and no group should preach or direct hatred towards other individuals or groups. If you believe that individuals or groups should be allowed to direct hatred towards others then that would be for you to live with but I do not agree with such a viewpoint on humanity.  As far as your comment on gobbledygook is concerned, if any terms or explanations I have used have confused you then please let me know and I will try to clarify any areas you are unsure of.  If you want information on hate crimes in our time, in our local area, may I suggest that you contact either the Hounslow Community & Police Consultative Group or the Hounslow Community Safety Partnership, both of which are featured on the Hounslow Council website.

Gareth Evans ● 7445d

PhilThanks. To my mind the freedom of speech should exist only in so far as that freedom does not have a negative impact upon the freedom of others or bring about hatred or discrimination towards others. To allow a situation where anyone can excercise their freedom of speech but at the same time, try to limit the freedom of speech of the respondent is wholly wrong and unjust. "Is the concept of freedom of speech so clear-cut that we should legislate against insults or incitement towards minorities but strongly defend the right to mock them or subject them to ridicule?" - If anyone feels that they are in a position to mock or ridicule others without others having the right to reply, then we should not condone such actions.

Gareth Evans ● 7445d

VanessaThe much wider issue of freedom of speech, and rights versus responsibilities, was always going to be bigger than the question of whether or not this particular programme should have been screened.  I would agree it has been an interesting thread.

Phil Andrews ● 7450d

I am amazed it has gone on so long - but very interesting all the same.

Vanessa Smith ● 7450d

I keep thinking of something sensible to say, then forget which bit its supposed to go on and where I should put it, and then I forget what it was anyway...Somewhere there was a God bit, and I honestly think my God is a good guy and when we all get up there, we will find him very stressed out at how he has been misinterpreted by everyone, either to get a big following, or just to suit themselves.  Most of it is interpreted for people to use for themselves, for personal gain, particularly when it is used against other people.  The closest thing to evil is when somebody justifies an action against another by saying it is Gods word.  The next closest thing is walking past and ignoring something going on ... I am not sure if there is a commandment to cover that one.  Now I have got that off my chest I'm off out again.

Sarah Felstead ● 7450d

Vanessa,Do you need a contact at MI6?    I was able to curtail our Vyborg/wardrobe thread by calling in special agents just prior to Christmas.I shall probably be shot down in flames by suggesting this, but consideration should now be given to calling a halt to "3 Cheers for Auntie."

Ann S. Allridge ● 7450d

I don't think anyone has expressed the view that any group of people should not be able to object, of course they should - it's when those objections lead to plays, TV programmes etc. being taken off and thereby preventing others from seeing them that the argument occurs. There are things that offend all of us at one time or another, but that doesn't mean others shouldn't be able to enjoy them. Vive la difference! No-one should be able to foist their views and tastes on others without the right to respond and state a differing view, unless it is a question of obeying the law and even then we have the right to try and change bad law through the ballot box and our elected representatives in the House of Commons.

Vanessa Smith ● 7450d

GarethI agree with this entirely.  Where, however, does freedom of speech end and the need to protect the victims begin?For decades there was vociferous objection to race relations legislation on the grounds that it restricted the "freedom of speech" of those who believed people of other races to be different (I know, I was that little boy!) or, in extreme cases, "inferior" to themselves.  The counter argument was that the right of minorities to live in peace without being threatened or insulted was more important than the right of others to threaten or insult them.  Most people would be in favour of such legislation today, notwithstanding the fact that it certainly does restrict freedom of speech in its broadest sense.The Leader of the British National Party was recently arrested for comments which included a desciption of Islam as "a wicked, vicious faith" (making a prosecution stick on the grounds that these words might transgress a law which isn't yet on the statute books strikes me as tricky to say the least, but I digress).  The fact is that many would see such words as an incitement to hatred.Is the concept of freedom of speech so clear-cut that we should legislate against insults or incitement towards minorities but strongly defend the right to mock them or subject them to ridicule?  Is the difference really that obvious?  Can we confidently differentiate between the two?Speaking personally I am instinctively opposed to any legislation which curtails freedom of expression, but must accept that in instances it is necessary to protect the rights of others.  I certainly don't consider it in any way "liberal" or "broad-minded" to uphold the right to abuse whilst denying the victims the right to object to being abused.

Phil Andrews ● 7451d

GarethUncharacteristically, you are missing something really obvious.What Dan is saying, as I read it, is that somebody who opposes abortion and/or birth control is simply saying that you are wrong to be in favour of these things, even though that person would in most cases defend your right to hold that view.  This is not the same as insulting, denigrating or mocking you not for being of the same opinion as them.

Phil Andrews ● 7451d

If this rather unpleasant and misleading article is the best thing that you can find to prove your idea that religion and racism are linked then you will convince nobody. Although I don't agree with the points that Dan has made I do understand his arguments whereas you seem to respond with a load of gobbledigook mixed in with some references to what you feel are your own personal standards of humanity.I'm not sure why you choose to dislike groups of people simply because of what they believe. Rather than trotting out the tired old nonsense about religion causing more deaths than anything else perhaps you'd give us some examples of how religion causes misery in our time in our local area.

Andy Jones ● 7451d

Thank you for the explanation Vanessa.  I am not familiar with the show that was being recorded.  These things always seem strange when reported back and if people had gone to a recording of this nature, then it would be questionable why they then walked out!These shows get publicity from the 'walking out' bit, or somebody gets to dine out on that bit, so I would question if it was in fact a staged publicity stunt.  We have been to a number of recordings and the whole thing is put together very well from the organising of the audience through to the end broadcast, it is a well considered machine.  Which is why the suggestions that information is leaked out has some credibility in my opinion!  :-)

Sarah Felstead ● 7451d

I only reported what was in the newspaper - the implication was that the walkout was because they are gay. Personally I enjoyed the old £1 million property experiment, and I find Justin and Colin good entertainers and designers, so there we have a difference in opinion. The show in question does have partners on it to talk about relationships so we have to suppose that bigotry was the motivation for people to walk out?

Vanessa Smith ● 7451d

Dan Racism and religious persecution often go hand in hand, both inside and outside of religion. If you doubt this fact, I respectfully suggest that you read the article on Racism and religion - partners in crime? Which can be found at http://salt.claretianpubs.org/issues/racism/unsworth.htmlI cannot see how you can assume that it is hard for me to say, as I have, that I’m not of the opinion that a more secular society brings about bigotry towards those who follow a faith. I stand by my viewpoint and feel justified in doing so based upon what I have learnt and my own experiences. You shouldn’t feel at all confident in making comments about another’s coherency when your own postings are unclear and you fail to explain yourself when asked to do so. Added to this is the fact that you put up postings in the second person rather than using your own original thoughts. I do not have much in the way of “warm feelings” in relation to religion given that more misery has been heaped on the peoples of this planet and more lives have been wasted in the name of religion than under any other guise. I won’t be substituting any words, as you have suggested, as I see flaws in many aspects of many religions and feel it invidious to highlight any particular religion.

Gareth Evans ● 7452d

Dan in your posting of 15/01/05 21:57:00 you posted…”Despite this he is very much against changes in legislation to make promotion of hatred against religious groups a crime. He says that there was broad 'buy-in' from society in general that racism and homophobia needed to be legislated on whereas there is no real support for it outside faith communities meaning that any legislation would probably be ineffective”.I posted in my posting of 15/01/05 22:31:00 I posed as follows:”We have a series of anti-discrimination legislation, all designed to protect us as citizens. I don’t understand how your friend can claim that “there was broad 'buy-in' from society in general that racism and homophobia needed to be legislated on whereas there is no real support for it outside faith communities”. Surely society in general encompasses all of society, faith based and secular, or can your friend expand on his interpretation of “society in general”How can you then claim as you did in your posting of 15/01/05 22:52:00…”He didn't say that - you need to re-read the post properly”You assert that your friend claims that there is no real support for legislation to protect citizens on the basis of their religious beliefs and that any such anti-hatred legislation would be ineffective. I strongly disagree with this stance. Since the attacks of 11th September, Muslims have faced an unprecedented level of Islamophobia which the government and society in general has to combat. Current blasphemy legislation only covers the Church of England. Legislation is needed to protect followers of the many other faiths against religious hatred. The Commission for Racial Equality, Justice, Muslim Council of Britain and the British Humanist Association all support legislation on incitement to religious hatred. The absence of such legislation provides racist groups with opportunities to pursue their hate campaigns under a different guise. David Blunkett didn’t feel that a law targeting "incitement to religious hatred" would be ineffective when representing the government as Home Secretary. He proposed such a law in July 2004. 

Gareth Evans ● 7452d

If the Jamaican rap artist used material which was prejudiced or which incited hatred, then the artist quite rightly should have been banned. So yes, the protestors in this case have validity in their protests. Equally, if any religion feels that it can advocate prejudice or hatred against others, these religions should be banned to my mind and I would see nothing wrong in anyone demonstrating against any such religious organisations. If the showing of Behzti exposed a case of real sexual abuse and murder in a Sikh temple, it should have been shown. Equally an exposé of sexual abuse carried out by any religion or by any religious leader would be right to be aired through the media. I suppose that some will call the questioning to account of religions as blasphemy, I don’t. The self-proclaimed Archbishop Gilbert Deya misused the name of religion in order to traffic children from Kenya, selling these children to childless couples for £5,000 a time. It can’t be right for a religious leader to lead childless couples from within his own congregation into believing that through his prayers alone, infertile women can become pregnant. Would anyone suggest that by questioning the right of anyone to investigate the Gilbert Deya Ministries to expose such shameful human trafficking that they were being blasphemous against the faith followed by members of the congregation of the Gilbert Deya Ministries? If Sikh’s feel that their culture is not fairly represented in the media, all that Sikh’s have to do is to represent themselves. Over recent years there have been great strides made in the media towards the positive representation of many cultures, I for one hope that this continues.

Gareth Evans ● 7452d

Dan I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.  It was obviously wasted on you as your postings don't even make sense.

Gareth Evans ● 7452d

"I might be missing something really obvious here"Trust me - you are

Dan Evans ● 7452d

Dan If someone doesn't argue with your right to hold a belief, how can they then say that you are wrong? I might be missing something really obvious here but if you tell someone that water is wet and they agree with you, how can you claim at the same time that they assert that you are wrong?

Gareth Evans ● 7452d

Perhaps including a comma would help you understand.........I agree with birth control and abortion but the people who oppose these things don't argue with my right to hold these beliefs, they are saying I'm wrong.

Dan Evans ● 7452d

"Your Christian friend should feel proud that these days enlightened people look beyond the colour of his skin."Why should he, if all that has happened is that it has been replaced with a hostility towards him because of his faith."I’m not of the opinion that a more secular society brings about bigotry towards those who follow a faith"Hard for you or I to say surely if we are not religious. It was just that my friend made this comment and some of the things written in this thread prompted me to think he may have a point. I'm not accusing you of the kind of 'secular bigotry' he describes but you clearly don't have particularly warm feelings towards people of faith and some of the points you have made, when they have been coherent, suggest you have issues with people who have religious belief. Try substituting the word 'Jewish' instead of 'Christian' or 'religious' in some of the statements made by you and other and see if you still feel they reflect the 'humanity and understanding' of a 'civilised society'."I don’t understand how your friend can claim that “there was broad 'buy-in' from society in general that racism and homophobia needed to be legislated on whereas there is no real support for it outside faith communities”. "He didn't say that - you need to re-read the post properly

Dan Evans ● 7452d

Keith Quite right in that case to have walked out than to have caused damage or to have used threatening behaviour. In answer to your questions, nobody should be preaching hatred in our society -without exception and nobody should turn a blind eye to it. To do so would be to condone it.

Gareth Evans ● 7452d

A small voice here, but does anyone know why the people walked out when Justin & Colin came in?  Are we assuming that it is to do with their sexuality?  I am sorry, but having watched their million £ house programme I would have been the 9th person in the line exiting the studio!  I definitely would have exercised my freedom of choice as they are hardly either talented or entertaining.  Boring and irritating yes.

Sarah Felstead ● 7452d

Dan Your posting made no sense to me either, hence I asked you to explain it. ......I agree with birth control and abortion but the people who oppose these things don't argue with my right to hold these beliefs they are saying I'm wrong.

Gareth Evans ● 7452d

Your Christian friend should feel proud that these days enlightened people look beyond the colour of his skin. I’m not of the opinion that a more secular society brings about bigotry towards those who follow a faith, rather I am of the opinion that the questioning of faith brings about more humanity and understanding. Understanding and acceptance of those around us leads to a more civilised society, rather than a divided society which often results under opposing faith based cultures.We have a series of anti-discrimination legislation, all designed to protect us as citizens. I don’t understand how your friend can claim that “there was broad 'buy-in' from society in general that racism and homophobia needed to be legislated on whereas there is no real support for it outside faith communities”. Surely society in general encompasses all of society, faith based and secular, or can your friend expand on his interpretation of “society in general”I agree with you that we all have a right to be treated equally and with respect. I’d go further and state that equality and respect means treating everyone with equality and respect and that nobody and that no organisation should incite hatred and discrimination against anyone else, religions included.

Gareth Evans ● 7452d

Sorry Gareth - none of that made any sense to me.

Dan Evans ● 7452d

This is a thread which is going around and around in circles...people rarely change their views no matter what others say.Replying to a rather extreme anti-British letter on another forum last week, I totally lost it and - yes - made a racist comment for which I was lambasted, and rightly so.  My posting was removed, but the letter that caused my outrageous reply was left on the thread.I agree absolutely that I was out of order, but so was the original poster.  One law for some, and another law for others?I hope I am not being racist again;  of all the folks on all the forums, I  am anti nothing, except extreme impoliteness/downright rudeness and ingratitude.Soapbox will be chopped up tomorrow for firewood.

Ann S. Allridge ● 7452d

Dan It is not nonsense to me but you are of course entitled to your opinion. You state that you agree with birth control and abortion and that the people who oppose these don’t argue with your right to hold these beliefs, but they say that you are wrong. Can you explain your reasoning for me because to my way of thinking if you agree with something and another party does not oppose your view, I cannot see how the other party can claim that you are wrong in your belief?

Gareth Evans ● 7452d

Sorry but what you have written is complete nonsense. I agree with birth control and abortion but the people who oppose these things don't argue with my right to hold these beliefs they are saying I'm wrong. It has to be said that some of the attitudes I've heard expressed in this thread seem to confirm what a Christian friend of mine described as the growing trend of secular bigotry. As more and more people are brought up in a very secular culture they are increasingly hostile to people with a faith. He is from an ethnic minority and says that whereas ten years ago it would have been bigoted comments about the colour of his skin now the same kind of language is used against him because of his faith. He says that people are always suspicious of difference and in the ignorant this turns to hatred.Despite this he is very much against changes in legislation to make promotion of hatred against religious groups a crime. He says that there was broad 'buy-in' from society in general that racism and homophobia needed to be legislated on whereas there is no real support for it outside faith communities meaning that any legislation would probably be ineffective. I actually disagree with him on this - I think that legislation has given back ethnic minorities and gays the right to expect to be treated with respect and it could do the same for people from particular religions as well.

Dan Evans ● 7452d

PhilWeek in and week out religious organisations denigrate, insult and mock the well founded beliefs of many others simply because these very same religious organisations will not accept that others have an equal right to their own beliefs. The right of women to have an abortion is not recognised by certain religious organisations who preach against it yet many women undergo abortions. Birth control is preached against too, yet millions around the world use birth control. I uphold the individual’s right to demonstrate as I wholeheartedly uphold the right of the individual to live his or her life free of political or religious persecution.

Gareth Evans ● 7452d

I think they walked out because they didn't like the person's behaviour ie:writing what they judged as offensive and blasphemous material.Surely better to walk out than to damage the studio and use threatening behaviour?The answer to your question begs anopther question--how much,in a secular society,can you turn a blind eye to anyone preaching hatred toward others because of their own intolerance of others. Are you asking should we tolerate intolerance?

Keith Iddon ● 7452d

I don't agree at all - I think many of these protests do have some validity. Are the people who protested against the Jamaican rap artists prejudiced tiny minded bigots? Every Sikh I have spoken to made the point that they accept that like other religious groups they have no right not to be offended but that the play in Birmingham is the ONLY representation of their culture in the British arts and entertainment industry.This is becoming an increasing problem because the media is becoming increasingly fragmented and viewing figures are hard to get. Courting controversy is an easier route to increasing viewership or selling records than producing something of any great quality. Would anyone have heard of Beeny Man but for the protests that have accompanied his gigs. The standard practise now is to make sure the usual 'rent-a-quote' extremists are given advance copies of material. This serves the double purpose of gaining free publicity and allowing you to characterise the objectors as nutters.I don't know exactly who was protesting outside the BBC - I'm told it was a coalition of groups including Christians and Muslims. Within the BBC there have been several resignations over the issue of Jerry Springer including one senior producer. They may also be 'plonkers' but with even the ex-head of Channel 4 (who was no stranger to controversial programming in his time) and now BBC governor Michael Grade, intimating the broadcast was a mistake, opposition to the programme can't be said to be the preserve of small minded bigots.Basically there is money to be made by offending people and the best way to do it is by going for soft targets - Christians, gays, Sikhs etc. I don't think that the people who object to this are tiny-minded, bigoted fools.

Dan Evans ● 7452d

VanessaVery concisely put and yes, I’m in total agreement.

Gareth Evans ● 7452d

Keith Fair points but if you were invited to a TV studio and a Sikh or Christian walked on stage, would you walk off just on the basis of them being Sikh or Christian? I’d hope not. Yes freedom comes into it and if someone really doesn’t like the guest the simplest answer may be to walk out but I’d hope that the basis for walking out wouldn’t be on the race, colour, religion etc. of the guest. I doubt that anyone was forced to watch Jerry Springer The Opera. Likewise I doubt that anyone was forced to watch Behzti. Agreed that Jerry Springer The Opera contained what some consider to be obscene language and which contained scenes which questioned the Christian faith but from what I remember, these facts was made clear by the BBC before the show was aired so even if we had not seen the show in its West End run which has been on since 2002, we were at least aware in general terms of what was about to be shown. If we didn’t want to watch the show we could have switched over or switched off. Christian Voice lead a campaign against the BBC to stop the show being aired and 47,000 people protested even before the show was aired yet several million viewers watched the show. The National Secular Society defended the right of the BBC to air the show, urging the BBC not to give in to the protestors. The BBC is there for us all, it has to represent all sectors and to borrow a euphemism, is a broad church. The producer and the star of the show are themselves both Christians, so if they can’t express how they feel about their own interpretation of Christianity, who can? I understand that people walked out of Behzti and protested about it because the play depicts sexual abuse and murder in a Sikh temple. Again, the writer of the play is a Sikh herself, so are we to assume that she has no right to express her thoughts on her own religion? Does freedom of expression come into it when a theatre is broken into and substantial damage caused just because some people don’t like what is being performed? If a religious leader preaches hatred against others just because others do not follow the same religious thoughts of the religious leader, do any of us have the right to demonstrate outside the religious building, intimidating the congregation and causing damage? Bigots come in many guises but as licence payers we should be able to decide for ourselves what to watch and what not to watch on BBC, aka Auntie.

Gareth Evans ● 7452d

Put like that,yes we are...:-)

Keith Iddon ● 7452d

I think you have misunderstood - The point I believe both Gareth and I are making is that in 2005 we find it amazing that there are still tiny-minded, bigoted fools who are so prejudiced that they find it necessary to object to plays, TV programmes and Gay people, and frankly I don't give a monkey's what their creed or colour is. I was appalled at was allowed to happen in Birmingham, just as I have been appalled at the plonkers who protested outside the BBC, I think we are all agreeing - aren't we?

Vanessa Smith ● 7452d

I might have missed something here...but what has all that got to do with someone walking out of a tv studio because they don't like the guest or what he represents to them?It's called freedom.It seems to me that it's ok to protest and cause a disturbance if you're a sikh,because then something you find offensive is removed from the public domain thus curtailing freedom of expression and speech,in effect censuring .This does not seem to apply if you are a christian.If you protest that you have been offended by what you see as obscenity and blasphemy,there are those who call you narrow minded bigots,thus exposing their own prejudicial narrow mindedness.Funny old world,eh?

Keith Iddon ● 7452d

Amazing isn’t it that in 2005 such people still exist? I’d love to see how these bigots would react when they desperately needed someone to assist them, such as a paramedic, police officer, nurse, doctor, civil servant or anyone else. Like many others, through surgery I have relied upon blood kindly donated by others. I have absolutely no idea who donated the blood, they might well have been male, female, straight, gay, bi, English, French, Chinese, Somalian,  black, white, Christian, Jewish, Muslim etc. I bet that when these bigots really need the assistance of any of the above, their prejudices on the grounds of sex, race, colour, religion etc. go right out of the window.

Gareth Evans ● 7452d

Gareth - seen in today's "Mirror", eight people in the audience for a recording of the Keith Barrett show got up and walked out when they realised the guests were Justin & Colin the designer/makeover bods. The writer wondered if these narrow minded little bigots had gone off to join their mates who were ripping up another part of the BBC in prtest at the Jerry Springer broadcast. Ye Gods, what is wrong with these people?

Vanessa Smith ● 7452d

Correction - What type of people

Gareth Evans ● 7452d

Dan Who type of people have protested about Jamaican singers such as Beeny Man?

Gareth Evans ● 7453d

Keith: Looking at the mirror...I might be a MELON..or a PEAR on legs.  One day I'd like to meet one of my old DATES but the last place I'd take her would be to see the Jerry Springer Opera!  Much prefer to take her to the Russian Winter Festival at Traf Square this Saturday.So, looking forward to seeing some fresh fruit at February's Farmers Market.

Jim Lawes ● 7453d

I absolutely agree that we should have a say in what we would like to view as we pay for our licences, but we will always have very diferent opinions as to what makes good TV and they can never please everyone! I appreciate not all people have sky packages but we have alot more choice now than those days of four chanels! and like we choose to read books and go to the theatre, we can choose what to watch on TV! If i find a book or programe distasteful, you may find it entertaining! I wont watch/read it but I have no right to stop you watching it.

Kim Littlewood ● 7455d

Have'nt read all the thread, but I didn't view the programme.  I find the use of the f and c word very VERY boring, and I suppose, offensive. Has anyone mentioned the fact that we pay a license fee to the BBC and therefore should have something to actually view?  We choose to pay to go to the theatre, and go to what we think/have read we will like........TV programmes are thrown at us, willy-nilly!

Lois Westby ● 7455d

I like bananas, because they haven't go no bones.Cherie Blair, Esther Rantzen and Mick Jagger like bananas too...because they can eat them sideways!

Gerry Tan ● 7455d

So, what are you,Jim?:-)

Keith Iddon ● 7455d

No!..Sarah is an apple...with a good core.Gerry? He's a mango...because he gets us to go goSally? She's a bunch of grapes..she likes to go to Press..awful aren't they?Michael is a plum....because he is a Victorian..(get it?)Who is a tangerine? because they wear Orange!!

Jim Lawes ● 7456d

Well.I've been called some things in my time(blah blah...)but Turnip Top,that's a new one. I'm trying to work out the significance of the term...no,I'm lost....are you a Swede with a nutty sense of humour?

Keith Iddon ● 7456d

Hey! Turnip Top (Keith) - I hope Nilesh thinks of a fruity response to your welcome!

Sarah Felstead ● 7456d

Welcome,Nilesh,to the forum...the show that never ends!Could you give an example of these euphemistically used leguminous nomenclatures please?

Keith Iddon ● 7456d

What about the people who have protested about Jamaican singers such as Beeny Man? They have managed to get performances cancelled through protests. Surely exactly the same principles apply. If people don't like what he says shouldn't they just not go to his concerts?Perhaps the BBC should show their commitment to artistic freedom by broadcasting one of them.

Dan Evans ● 7456d

PhilI agree with you on this 100%. This is the very point I tried, rather clumsily as it turns out, to point out. Nobody is perfect and if subsequently any of us discover the error of our ways, so be it for we will have learnt a valuable lesson. RegardsGareth

Gareth Evans ● 7456d

As you have related the tale I would certainly agree that this guy's attitude was hypocritical.  However had he done things in the past which he had later come to believe were wrong I would not consider this to be hypocrisy.  Just a personal view.

Phil Andrews ● 7456d

I have to say.... I dont understand people that go to such lengths to complain about these types of programmes.If you dont want to see it on YOUR TV then turn over or turn off! I actually went to see J Springer at the Theatre and thought it was quite funny but we are all entitled to our own opinions.

Kim Littlewood ● 7456d

"...most of those so-called models are so thin they're practically transparent!"Yes VANESSA, our JIM needs spectacles...personally, I prefer my models to be Reubenesque rather than his scraggylike sylphs of the Sunday Times Supp. Speaking of whom, I wonder what Reuben's public thought of his buxom buttocked biblical subjects with their bare breasted boobies? I don't think there was the same outcry of obsenity and sacrilege as we have experienced recently with the screening of Springer! Or perhaps there was. Art is a strange thing and like Jim's fashion scene, it dwells a while and moves on fast...just like religion really, which is not the same now as it was to Blake, Milton, Cromwell, Wesley or Graham. Or perhaps it does stay constant and unchanging? Discuss.

Gerry Tan ● 7456d

Yes Phil, please see the bottom paragraph of my posting of 09/01/05 00:27:00. RegardsGareth

Gareth Evans ● 7456d

Yes Phil, please see the bottom paragraph of my posting of 09/01/05 00:27:00. RegardsGareth

Gareth Evans ● 7456d

All I can say is Jim, your eyesight must be exceptionally good - most of those so-called models are so thin they're practically transparent!

Vanessa Smith ● 7456d

What were the Beeb thinking about? When I pay for good money for something, I expect something good in return! I have to say that Jerry Springer does nothing positive for the public of today as a whole! Swearing shows lack of the good English Vocabularly we were taught at school. What's wrong with using vegetable names or even fruits! I do this and feel better for it!

Nilesh Shah ● 7456d

GarethI have said elsewhere that I believe the demonstrations to have been a mistake, but if you uphold the rights of some to denigrate, insult and mock the religious beliefs of others then surely you would not deny those others their right to protest?

Phil Andrews ● 7457d

"Bikini bottoms ..with crutch contours exposed are now commonplace..."Or so Jim is told!!

Phil Andrews ● 7457d

Could you give us an example?

Phil Andrews ● 7457d

was it just a case of a few ultra right religious zealots having a pop? To my mind, yes it was and I'd go further in saying that if they stuck to furthering their own religious interests rather than trying to moralise for others, they'd be better off and we’d all be happier.

Gareth Evans ● 7457d

'the arguments about artistic freedom are not applicable'...who arbitrates what is art and what is not? George Bernard Shaw said words to the effect that you can call anything art,but whether others consider it to be  good or bad art is another matter.To say it isn't art is spurios in my opinion.There have been many great films made over the years that incorporate plenty of swearing and violence etc.You don't have to watch them. My earlier point I think is relevant still regarding the recent play in B'ham that was taken off the stage as some members of the community found it offensive.In my opinion ,it is a sign of intolerance and lack of acceptance of what others find entertaining. I personally would rather watch paint dry than watch Jerry Springer/Ricki Lake/Trisha or any of that nonsense,but other people don't share my view.

Keith Iddon ● 7457d

PhilI don't expect anyone to be perfect, none of us are. However, I see it as highly hypocritical for someone to claim to be a devout follower of any religion, when at the same time they carry out, or have carried out in the past, acts which go against the basic principles of the religion they claim to be a part of.  I’m not talking of someone who may have carried out an act, which they later regret and for which they have sought forgiveness. I’m talking of those who choose on the one hand to publicly embrace an ideology while on the other hand, carrying out acts, which go against the very ideology to which they claim to follow.

Gareth Evans ● 7457d

I would just like to register my non interest in watching the said programme...and I trust that the BBC will refrain sending too much of such tripe to my TV aerial!! To listen to a symphony of bad language is not my idea of a pleasant pastime...I'd rather listen to a concerto of 5am Jumbo's.  Media decision makers enjoy gradually pushing the boundaries of acceptable taste and the thought that such language can become the norm ..makes one want to hide away from public spaces.If you watched and enjoyed the TV programme...well good for you. I cringe at the thought that the Fs and Cs will increasingly be part of regular conversation. How can one ask youngsters on a bus or train to cut out the swearing as you embark on a 30 min bus ride?Fancy being trapped in railway carriage with constantly swearing adults? The millions of new immigrants in the country ..if they saw the programme..will think that such diatribe is the lingo  for "networking" their way into their new surroundings.Sure, the TV can be switched off. Sure children and others are exposed to these things at their work and play. But the "pushers" are encrouching bit by bit on the nations middle of the road tastes. Because the fabric of everybody's wellbeing is damaged by the screening of such crap on a mainline TV Station ...one hopes that those responsible at the BBC will be tarnished...and re-educated. They are damaging the BBC ..part of our heritage.I notice the same bit by bit creep in the weekly Sunday Times "Style Magazine" Over the years the pictures of fashion models have gradually exposed more and more of the female form.  Not suffice with a tempting cleavage, or a leggy leg..readers of the Sunday Times are these days affronted with camera angles that would send Gerry in a spin.  Bikini bottoms ..with crutch contours exposed are now commonplace...as the Picture Editors keep pushing the barriers. Very pleasant I must say....but sod to all that swearing on the telly.I'm going to join Paul Allen on his new thread.

Jim Lawes ● 7457d

Bryan - I can assure you I wasn't trying to impress you with these numbers nor do I read the Daily Mail. They have been widely quoted in the media. The BBC's statement on the matter is claiming 370 uses of the F word - I'd estimate that in the short period I watched it that it was used over 100 times and barely a heartbeat went by without the use of some obscenity.If you have taken the trouble to count the occurences I'm quite happy to trust the number you give but, given that it will be high whatever, the actual number isn't really important in terms of the overall issue.On the issue of censorship Mary Kenny in the Guardian writes on this subject showing what nonsense it is to use the censorship defence in this case. As she points out "Censorship means that you cannot access a particular text or piece of material because the authorities withhold it. But choosing not to broadcast something coarse and foul-mouthed is not necessarily censorship; it may be called exercising editorial judgment."

Dan Evans ● 7457d

"The use of the F word went into high 4 figures and the C word nearly reached a thousand."The BBC has already debunked this - the numbers only get that high if you multiply the number of times the word is in the script by the number of people in the chorus (27). That's patently ludicrous, and is purely designed to grab headlines and impress the ignorant (hello, Daily Mail readers).

Bryan Betts ● 7457d

I'm with you Gerry, censorship makes me twitchy too. I can't imagine that the relatively few complainants will hurry the death knell of public service broadcasting, on their own admission they were building on what happened in Birmingham, which I find pretty distasteful. I didn't watch the programme for the same reason I haven't been to see the stage version - I just don't fancy it one bit, neither did I watch Jerry Springer's show as I thought it was awful as most of these so-called "reality" programmes are. However, some years ago we went to see "Closer" when it was in the West End, this is now a much heralded film, I can tell you the language in that caused much harrumphing and tutting from some in the audience, so what if it's in the film? This is being touted as an Oscar winner, it has no religious connotations as I recall but will there be moans about the swearing? There really didn't seem to be any fuss over Jesus Christ Superstar or Joseph which no doubt offended some, was it just a case of a few ultra right religious zealots having a pop?

Vanessa Smith ● 7457d

SarahAt the holiday camp on the Isle of Wight which we sometimes visit there is a "virtual reality" type machine (for children, it seems) in which the participant's character creeps up behind an unsuspecting women and beats her to death with a hammer.  The more hits, I believe, the higher the score achieved.  Just for good measure virtual blood and guts squirt everywhere whenever successful contact is made.  My son was quite proud to have progressed to Level Three.In the light of the recent tragic happening on Twickenham Green, I broke with my usual "live and let live" philosophy to register a complaint about this.  Whether it is still there, or has been replaced by a game of "Behead the Hostage", I have yet to confirm.

Phil Andrews ● 7457d

I don’t think it is the language that we have to worry about on TV but the visual impact of how it is used and who it is directed towards.Like Dan I watched the first 5 minutes of this programme, and found the music and singing pleasant enough, but I didn’t choose to keep watching as it wasn’t something which appealed to me.  You might find that the overuse of poor language lessons the impact by activating some personal, inbuilt immunity?  As a one off I could take it or leave it.The people I am most concerned about are the youngsters watching and people who are viewing it and forming opinions of our culture and lifestyle. Had it been set in a story line of East Enders or The Bill or even Casualty, or another ‘family’ soap I would have been more worried.  But then I am worried about the traits on TV and the way things are going with all the blood and gore.  I think we are being desensitised to horror, and negative images of relationships.It may sound silly, but the first time I noticed much about soaps was when I was on Maternity leave with No1 son (he is nearly 21).  I occasionally watched (go on have a giggle, I don’t care!) Sons and daughters.  There were these huge division lines in the relationships where half the cast hated the other half.  When I had son number 2 and turned it on again, it had all reversed!  Just as fickle as East Enders where nobody succeeds through hard work and there is an awful lot of money floating around from dubious sources.  More importantly nobody works at sustaining a relationship.  The Coronation Street story lines concerning Sarah Platt?  I am speechless, but lots of young girls watch on.The important factor about Mary Whitehouse was there was an obvious focal point to having a grievance about what we see on TV.  I really can’t say that any complaints procedures would trip off my tongue.  I have made a complaint once or twice and it meant a few phone calls and being given another number to ring – so a trail, which is never easy.I complained a long time ago about how The Bill gave an easy visual description on how to make a Molotov cocktail.  Until it was beamed into my living room it hadn’t ever occurred to me what it really was, or for that matter how simple it was to make, and even more outrageous, who one might try to throw it at?  The huge number of children watching were ‘clocking’ all this in the same way; and some may have even tried to ‘make one at home’ in true Blue Peter fashion.Another complaint I made was about an advert (have a problem with adverts, sometimes, I do).  It was a tyre advert and the scene was of a tyre being, well it looked like it was being thrown off a tower block….. !  I could just see the thought process – ooh!  I wonder how far it would bounce if ...?I didn’t much care for the one where a rabbit (what does that have to do with a health insurance scheme?) was thrown into a laundrette washing machine and we watched it go around and around.The present one I really don’t care much about AT ALL is the depiction of a Gremlin in the ‘Get rid of your Gremlins’ -  GOVERNMENT advert.  The last one I saw was the Gremlin (dwarf?  maybe I should be grateful for him that he has a job and not complain? … !!!!!!!).  He was being thrown into an industrial waste bin and deposited into the back of a refuse lorry.  If the school children trip across a small person tonight, can they do the same?  Where do they get their behavioural ideas from? It is quite frightening.  The Department is so proud of the adverts that you can download pages of pictures of Gremlins from official websites, too.  Why is a Gremlin about 3ft 6 tall?  - and not a really big issue?  Reading and writing is surely a big issue to somebody taking a genuine interest in these classes?  Who perceives it as being a small irritating problem other than somebody who is being patronising maybe?These are all the real influencing factors which upset me, the ones which work their way into being a way of life and not a spectacle such as this programme.

Sarah Felstead ● 7457d

Well said, Dan.I watched it to see what all the fuss was about - it was total crap.

Ann S. Allridge ● 7457d

Gerry I think you've misunderstood my point. Whether you enjoyed it or not the question is not whether it should have been broadcast but whether the BBC should have been the channel to do so. Although there has been an attempt to present this as an issue of artistic freedom and censorship it really has little to do with that. The BBC has a unique position in the broadcasting industry. The development of new media and the changes in the way the BBC operates are making many people feel that the licence fee should be scrapped. By alienating a large part of the population by broadcasting this programme they will make it politically easier for people like Rupert Murdoch to persuade the government to end the BBC's privileged position. This isn't something I would welcome but the BBC is digging its own grave.

Dan Evans ● 7457d

GarethWith respect a Christian does not become a hypocrite by not being perfect.  A Christian who believes himself or herself to be perfect is the truest hypocrite of all.  If Christians believed themselves to lead sinless and blameless lives there would be no need for anybody to attend church.With regard to the Jerry Springer thing I personally find it distasteful (from the bits I have seen from the newsclips - I haven't watched the whole show).  However I feel that one cannot impose good taste by legislation and would agree that the offensive nature of this particular show has probably been played up to boost audiences.  The demonstrators have played into his hands and ought to know better.

Phil Andrews ● 7457d

"Having sat through about 5 minutes of it my view of it is that it is a nail in the coffin of public broadcasting in this country and a disasterous error. What might play well to middle class audiences in a London Theatre who are mildly excited by a bit of bad language doesn't necessarily go down well with much of the rest of the country who may have to cope with foul mouthed anti-social behaviour on a daily basis.The BBC have been very naive over this..."DAN, I don't agree with you. Yes there were too many F and C words, but there was some quality in the programme, which made it quite entertaining. The quality of the music and some of the singing was rather average(some of it really naff!), but set design, lighting and movement were pretty good I thought and generally the production values made it worth screening. It was funny too, which I like in any stage production. Well done the Beeb for having the courage to go ahead, despite unprecedented demonstrations against screening. I always get an uneasy feeling about censorship of any kind. Sorry you were offended by this sort of thing, but I believe it should have been transmitted - and I actually enjoyed the experience(a bit). "Nail in the coffin of public broadcasting"? - I think not DAN. :-o

Gerry Tan ● 7457d

Whilst it is certainly right to say that people should reserve judgment on a programme until they have seen it this cuts both ways. You can't laud the BBC for transmitting it or tell objectors to like it or lump it until you've seen it for yourself.Having sat through about 5 minutes of it my view of it is that it is a nail in the coffin of public broadcasting in this country and a disasterous error. What might play well to middle class audiences in a London Theatre who are mildly excited by a bit of bad language doesn't necessarily go down well with much of the rest of the country who may have to cope with foul mouthed anti-social behaviour on a daily basis.The BBC have been very naive over this. Such is the pressure on them to keep up viewing figures that they have clearly used the old PR trick of informing groups with the most conservative opinions in advance in the hope of stirring up controversy. This seems to have been only too successful - I don't think the BBC will be arrogant enough to use the daft argument that the number of objections was small in relation to the number of those watching. Even allowing for the fact that there was a coordinated effort to get people to complain, I believe this number of complaints is just about unprecedented.The BBC have in the past run challenging confrontational drama that has caused complaints which they have rightly ignored. However for this one joke, second rate musical the arguments about artistic freedom just aren't applicable. The use of the F word went into high 4 figures and the C word nearly reached a thousand. Any performance piece that repeats any words so many times is likely to be difficult to listen to - the fact that that it was these two words isn't pushing back boundaries of cultural expression. I found it completely unwatchable.The BBC has found it in this position because of its increased use of independent production companies - these don't share the public service ethos of the BBC and are driven by commercial consideration. They are probably delighted with the furore which has guaranteed them a fortune in global royalties.The effect on the BBC is more important however. I've always been a big supporter of the licence fee structure and its independence but only on the basis that this freedom would be used to provide quality programming of an improving nature that the commercial networks were unlikely to provide. What I don't want are unwatchable performances that serve to further desensitise our society to foul mouthed obscenity. If this was broadcast on Channel 4 you could use the argument that if I don't like it I shouldn't watch it but the BBC are in part accountable to me as I pay my licence fee.  When the licence fee is scrapped and we no longer have a public service broadcaster in this country people will look back at 'Jerry Springer - the Opera' as the time when public support for the BBC turned.

Dan Evans ● 7457d

According to the news today the BBC had 45,000 complaints, when you think how many people watch the TV that is a mere drop in the ocean. I don't think anyone should be allowed to stop something being shown whether it is the theatre or TV, quite simply as several people have said if you believe you will find it offensive - then don't watch it. What is peculiar about the Jerry Springer thing is that it's run for years in the West End without so much as a peep.

Vanessa Smith ● 7458d

Fair enough Gareth,i was trying to say her heart was in the right place but in the end she was ridiculed by the public partly i suspect because she was unelected and came across as an old mother hen.The repeats we see now of shows of that era makes you wonder what she was on about anyway as they were so tame compared with todays fare.

Paul Fisher ● 7458d

You could apply this to the Sikhs in B'ham. The recent protestors obviously learned nothing from them.Maybe if they had been violent and threatening in their protest,they would have had Jerry Springer cancelled...

Keith Iddon ● 7458d

Maybe he saw the error of his ways after meeting someone he loved.To destroy those pictures would have been more hypocritical.None of us are perfect,eh?

Keith Iddon ● 7458d

Bryan Protests against the Passion of Christ didn't stop it being shown and I'm glad that Jerry Springer the Opera wasn't stopped from being shown either. In fact, I think that the protesters may well have boosted the viewing figures.

Gareth Evans ● 7459d

I'm not too sure that Mary Whitehouse had thoughts and ideas which were well founded. We laugh along with comedians and programmes today the like of which Mrs Whitehouse would have been set firm against all those years ago. I fail to see who elected Mrs Whitehouse to a position in which she felt empowered to arbitrate over what was and what was not acceptable for any of us.

Gareth Evans ● 7459d

I'm happy that the BBC aired the production. If those who organised and protested outside the BBC at Wood Lane felt so strongly about it being shown on the BBC, they should simply have turned over before the programme went on air. I’m not too keen on a lot of things that happen, but that’s life and we should have regard for others. When religious groups feel that they can pressurise individuals and organisations to suppress freedom of expression, civilised society suffers. A case of NIMBY and double standards I feel. What if a group of atheists called for Songs of Praise to be taken off air. Does anyone think that those who protested over Jerry Springer would be impressed? While we are on the subject of religion, which I am not a fan of anyway, I sat down to watch a TV programme the other night about marriage. The programme featured a couple who were about to get married, usual things, filming of the organisation of events running up to the big day etc. Nice couple I thought, hoping that everything was going to go well for them on their big day. They described themselves as Christians all through the programme, making out that they had saved themselves for their big day, avoiding sex and living under separate roofs. Then a little further into the programme the fiancé is shown sitting on his bed going through pictures taken before he had met his fiancée, of him with a multitude of women who he proudly boasted that he had bedded. He had thought of getting rid of the pictures, but decided on keeping them. He pointed out that he wasn’t a born again Christian, he claimed that he had always been a Christian and felt that he and his fiancée should save themselves for marriage. So much for Christian principles I thought. His attitude to abstinence struck me as being rather lackadaisical and somewhat akin to being a reformed virgin. I’m all for redemption but I’m against the crass hypocrisy this young man clearly demonstrated.

Gareth Evans ● 7459d

Having said that Paul, don't you find that even with more channels sometimes you just give up and go to bed with a good book?

Vanessa Smith ● 7459d

That's a very interesting question,especially in the light of what happened recently in that theatre in Birmingham.Perhaps the BBC could show a performance of the play there as well to show it's a level playing field when it comes to free expression of ideas in art and that no value judgements are made about subject matter.If you don't like it, don't tune in...

Keith Iddon ● 7460d

Is it my imagination or do the protests smell of an organised campaign by a group with vested interests? The BBC would be foolish to fall for one of those "We haven't seen it but we're sure it's disgusting - sign this pre-printed letter and send it in" type of complaints.

Bryan Betts ● 7460d

Well said Vanessa,this is 2005 and not the days of Mary Whitehouse although her thoughts and ideas were well founded.I am lucky to have cable tv so can pick another 50 channels so if i dont fancy watching a programme i simply turn over or off but i cannot understand people who watch a show knowing what it contains may offend them just to complain.

Paul Fisher ● 7460d