The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
On Friday night, I watched some of the Brasseye special on C4. It was absolutely disgusting, in my opinion. It was meant to be a comedy, and the only time I laughed was once, just as I turned on, when it had, "Here is a peadophile disguised as a house."
Then I began to see what it was all about. They showed footage of 2 people having sex, the woman meant to be a 10-year-old girl. They also brought a boy in, and then asked a 'peadophile,' if he fancied him!
After clocking up over a 1000 complaints, one from MP David Blunkett, they STILL showed the repeat!
And what's this I hear? They're getting rid of WWF because of it's 'extreme nature.' Supposedly, it's 'too hard to edit,' although it's shown at past midnight, and their have been a few complaints about the crazy stunts and the way they portray women.
John Bayer, Director of Media Watch UK, slammed the move. He said, "On one hand they transmit disgraceful programmmes such as Brass Eye and on the other hand they have a dislike of wrestling, which is just acting and healthy messing around. Their double standards are incomprehensable."
I completely agree. Brasseye wasn't funny, it was disgusting, and I expect it offended many people. How'd you think people who had actually been affected by the subject felt??
I was also shocked to see (not sure about her name,) but that women who starred in great comedies such as Beast and Smack The Pony, playing a large role in the program!
So Channel 4 think that Sports-Entertainment is wrong, and Brasseye is right. Wrestling is very popular in the UK, and the 4 PPV's that they show over the whole year, as well as the weekly edition of Sunday Night Heat, must get them a lot of viewers. Their have been hardly any complaints, and it's now been changed from an afternoon showing to a late night showing. Brasseye, which was shown at around 10pm I think, has now had over 2000 complaints, they show it twice and have still done nothing about it.
I am very annoyed at the actions of Channel 4. It's probably one of my favourite channels as it shows class programs such as Friends, Frasier, South Park and has good coverage of the Cricket. And of course, it did have WWF.
I would like to hear your views, and if you actually liked Brasseye, please tell me why as I am shocked that anyone could actually enjoy a programme with such dirty, offensive material.
Thanks for reading, Ant.
Then I began to see what it was all about. They showed footage of 2 people having sex, the woman meant to be a 10-year-old girl. They also brought a boy in, and then asked a 'peadophile,' if he fancied him!
After clocking up over a 1000 complaints, one from MP David Blunkett, they STILL showed the repeat!
And what's this I hear? They're getting rid of WWF because of it's 'extreme nature.' Supposedly, it's 'too hard to edit,' although it's shown at past midnight, and their have been a few complaints about the crazy stunts and the way they portray women.
John Bayer, Director of Media Watch UK, slammed the move. He said, "On one hand they transmit disgraceful programmmes such as Brass Eye and on the other hand they have a dislike of wrestling, which is just acting and healthy messing around. Their double standards are incomprehensable."
I completely agree. Brasseye wasn't funny, it was disgusting, and I expect it offended many people. How'd you think people who had actually been affected by the subject felt??
I was also shocked to see (not sure about her name,) but that women who starred in great comedies such as Beast and Smack The Pony, playing a large role in the program!
So Channel 4 think that Sports-Entertainment is wrong, and Brasseye is right. Wrestling is very popular in the UK, and the 4 PPV's that they show over the whole year, as well as the weekly edition of Sunday Night Heat, must get them a lot of viewers. Their have been hardly any complaints, and it's now been changed from an afternoon showing to a late night showing. Brasseye, which was shown at around 10pm I think, has now had over 2000 complaints, they show it twice and have still done nothing about it.
I am very annoyed at the actions of Channel 4. It's probably one of my favourite channels as it shows class programs such as Friends, Frasier, South Park and has good coverage of the Cricket. And of course, it did have WWF.
I would like to hear your views, and if you actually liked Brasseye, please tell me why as I am shocked that anyone could actually enjoy a programme with such dirty, offensive material.
Thanks for reading, Ant.
Page:
Absolutely no harm done whatsover Sandman. The difference is with you and I that we had a disagreement and spoke to each in civil tones and have walked away shaking hands with no ill-feelings at all, I can quite happily sit across from someone all day and argue about something, not fight, but argue.
My comment about "go back to Eastenders you morons" was made because of the types of people that watch these shows.
Now, before anyone jumps on me and yells in my face, let me explain.
I am not saying that you are wrong for watching these programmes. I personally find them far more dangerous than any satirical programme, because of the number of people that watch them with almost religious fervour - but that is just my opinion, I'm not saying I'm right.
However...(and there is always a however with this little agitator)
Programmes like Eastenders (or any soap opera, pick one) require no thought, effort or attempt at understanding from the viewer. It is escapist entertainment, there for background noise.
Anyone can watch Eastenders, stare at the screen and just watch the people walk about - there's nothing to it, it doesn't attempt to say anything of validity. It is merely there as a drama, McTelevision. Which is fine.
But then you get a programme like Brasseye that doesn't allow for simple watching. It requires the viewer to have a level of understanding, either about the issues presented, or a familiarity of Morris in particular.
I'm not being a snob, but your typical soap opera fan doesn't bother with programmes like Brasseye, it's on a little channel tucked away at night.
Average figures for the last series were 1.2 million as opposed to 17.5 million for Eastenders/Coronation Street etc.
The repeat series has been running for 5 weeks now without anyone mentioning it at all.
The fans of Morris are watching it, nobody else.
And then the papers kick up a fuss about it, and the nature of people means that they are going to tune in and watch.
And because they are not usually watching programmes like Brasseye, they misunderstand it completely.
It's not snobbish at all, but satirical comedy does require a certain level of intelligence, because you have to be familiar with current events to the extent that you can appreciate a spin on them.
This isn't the case for soap operas. And if you haven't been exposed to something like Brasseye, you will not "get it", it's not the sort of thing you usually watch.
Look at the viewing figures to prove it.
17.5 Million for Soap Operas, Stars In Their Eyes, Casualty, Hearbeat etc are watched by millions and millions of people.
Non-thought provoking, easy to watch, non offensive mainstream television. The programmes that appeal to Morris fans and those that appreciate satirical comedy are, at best, 2 million.
Which suggests that the two types of people rarely meet in the middle, it's "I watch this, you watch that and we'll all be fine."
But it's when people that have no clue about politics, satire, mass media techniques etc stray into this area, that they apply the same basic "What I am watching is all there is" rules of mass tv.
Eastenders etc don't bother with subtexts, or using subtle techniques to get points across about society and it's behaviour towards hot topics. So a majority of those that tuned in didn't stop to think "Ah I see what he's doing, he is making a mockery of the rampant hysteria with which modern media presents this to us" they just see "sick peadopihle jokes", of which there were none whatsoever.
And the response over this programme and this thread have proved that 100%. People aren't able to stop and think about what they are being presented with, simply because most people don't expose themselves to this sort of programming regularly enough to appreciate it for what it is, instead of merely taking it at face value and decrying it in the press.
Most people don't like to be tested when they watch tv, they watch it for entertainment and to "switch off" after a hard day, and that's perfectly ok, nobody says otherwise.
But when these same people make the mistake of wandering into Brasseye, then, unfortunately, they are out of their depth. That isn't meant to sound aloof or smug, I'm just trying to explain this situation and why it has been so touchy.
I abhor television on the whole, I can't stand to sit in front of the box for the evening and watch TV chefs, or home improvement people or unconventional detectives solve the mystery in an hour.
I watch programmes that will stimulate me, that will provoke a reaction in me and provide me with food for though.
That's just how I am, and I choose not to watch tv instead of standing there shouting at everyone else for watching it.
This is either the most ironic thing in the world, or someone is having a joke at my expense, but I got in tonight and my mum has been to London and bought me a couple of books, this is gospel truth or I wouldn't risk being laughed at considering your comment about "intellectualy snobbery".
The two books she bought for me are:
"Propoganda and The Public Mind" and "Manufacturing Consent:The Political Economy of The Mass Media" by Noam Chomsky.
This is the sort of thing that interests me, seeing how things like the media works to subdue people and keep them docile with things like soap operas, instead of making people question the very authorities around them.
THAT is why I love things like Brasseye and The Day Today, because I love to read and watch things that challenge me, that make me question something and to not assume it's the correct thing just because a paper says so.
Which is why I spent so much passion trying to explain Brasseye to people and why I ended up labelling some people morons and ill-informed children when all they could do was shout at me.
And now my head hurts and my fingers ache, I'm off to lay in a dark room and calm down, I've done enough serious stuff for one day...I need to hear fart jokes and Bill Hicks.
My comment about "go back to Eastenders you morons" was made because of the types of people that watch these shows.
Now, before anyone jumps on me and yells in my face, let me explain.
I am not saying that you are wrong for watching these programmes. I personally find them far more dangerous than any satirical programme, because of the number of people that watch them with almost religious fervour - but that is just my opinion, I'm not saying I'm right.
However...(and there is always a however with this little agitator)
Programmes like Eastenders (or any soap opera, pick one) require no thought, effort or attempt at understanding from the viewer. It is escapist entertainment, there for background noise.
Anyone can watch Eastenders, stare at the screen and just watch the people walk about - there's nothing to it, it doesn't attempt to say anything of validity. It is merely there as a drama, McTelevision. Which is fine.
But then you get a programme like Brasseye that doesn't allow for simple watching. It requires the viewer to have a level of understanding, either about the issues presented, or a familiarity of Morris in particular.
I'm not being a snob, but your typical soap opera fan doesn't bother with programmes like Brasseye, it's on a little channel tucked away at night.
Average figures for the last series were 1.2 million as opposed to 17.5 million for Eastenders/Coronation Street etc.
The repeat series has been running for 5 weeks now without anyone mentioning it at all.
The fans of Morris are watching it, nobody else.
And then the papers kick up a fuss about it, and the nature of people means that they are going to tune in and watch.
And because they are not usually watching programmes like Brasseye, they misunderstand it completely.
It's not snobbish at all, but satirical comedy does require a certain level of intelligence, because you have to be familiar with current events to the extent that you can appreciate a spin on them.
This isn't the case for soap operas. And if you haven't been exposed to something like Brasseye, you will not "get it", it's not the sort of thing you usually watch.
Look at the viewing figures to prove it.
17.5 Million for Soap Operas, Stars In Their Eyes, Casualty, Hearbeat etc are watched by millions and millions of people.
Non-thought provoking, easy to watch, non offensive mainstream television. The programmes that appeal to Morris fans and those that appreciate satirical comedy are, at best, 2 million.
Which suggests that the two types of people rarely meet in the middle, it's "I watch this, you watch that and we'll all be fine."
But it's when people that have no clue about politics, satire, mass media techniques etc stray into this area, that they apply the same basic "What I am watching is all there is" rules of mass tv.
Eastenders etc don't bother with subtexts, or using subtle techniques to get points across about society and it's behaviour towards hot topics. So a majority of those that tuned in didn't stop to think "Ah I see what he's doing, he is making a mockery of the rampant hysteria with which modern media presents this to us" they just see "sick peadopihle jokes", of which there were none whatsoever.
And the response over this programme and this thread have proved that 100%. People aren't able to stop and think about what they are being presented with, simply because most people don't expose themselves to this sort of programming regularly enough to appreciate it for what it is, instead of merely taking it at face value and decrying it in the press.
Most people don't like to be tested when they watch tv, they watch it for entertainment and to "switch off" after a hard day, and that's perfectly ok, nobody says otherwise.
But when these same people make the mistake of wandering into Brasseye, then, unfortunately, they are out of their depth. That isn't meant to sound aloof or smug, I'm just trying to explain this situation and why it has been so touchy.
I abhor television on the whole, I can't stand to sit in front of the box for the evening and watch TV chefs, or home improvement people or unconventional detectives solve the mystery in an hour.
I watch programmes that will stimulate me, that will provoke a reaction in me and provide me with food for though.
That's just how I am, and I choose not to watch tv instead of standing there shouting at everyone else for watching it.
This is either the most ironic thing in the world, or someone is having a joke at my expense, but I got in tonight and my mum has been to London and bought me a couple of books, this is gospel truth or I wouldn't risk being laughed at considering your comment about "intellectualy snobbery".
The two books she bought for me are:
"Propoganda and The Public Mind" and "Manufacturing Consent:The Political Economy of The Mass Media" by Noam Chomsky.
This is the sort of thing that interests me, seeing how things like the media works to subdue people and keep them docile with things like soap operas, instead of making people question the very authorities around them.
THAT is why I love things like Brasseye and The Day Today, because I love to read and watch things that challenge me, that make me question something and to not assume it's the correct thing just because a paper says so.
Which is why I spent so much passion trying to explain Brasseye to people and why I ended up labelling some people morons and ill-informed children when all they could do was shout at me.
And now my head hurts and my fingers ache, I'm off to lay in a dark room and calm down, I've done enough serious stuff for one day...I need to hear fart jokes and Bill Hicks.
Goatboy wrote:
I'm not claiming to be omnipotent,
Good thing to. I don't think your girlfriend would be very pleased.
:-)
I'm not claiming to be omnipotent,
Good thing to. I don't think your girlfriend would be very pleased.
:-)
sandman wrote:
I just objected to
> the vehemance and dogmatic nature of your protests on these issues.
> And if telling people to shut up and go back to watching Eastenders
> isn't intellectual snobbery then I'm sorry I accused you.
A fair point, but I reached the point where I couldn't handle these uniformed diatribes from those who didn't watch the show.
I had tried repeatedly and politely to say "well, I can see that you might be offended, but let me try to explain the reason behind this", and nobody listened.
I posted time and time again, calmly, rationally and politely in order that someone might calm down enough to read and think "ok, well..maybe I got it wrong."
I'm not claiming to be omnipotent, I apologised to someone today in another thread because I was intially hostile to them due to a misunderstanding.
But speaking nicely and calmly was getting nowhere, for every single rational post that I,and you, and Your Honour made, we were drowned out by the minority merely repeating what they had seen and read elsewhere.
So I reached a point where I had to shout myself in order to be heard, because being an adult wasn't working.
Someone can only take so much of being drowned out by screams of others, and I especially took offence at the fact that those yelling loudest and hardest had not even watched the show.
Sandman, this is not an attack on you whatsoever mate, because we are thrashing this out in a nice, calm manner.
I'm just trying to explain why I went from "Look, please listen to what that show was about" to "Damn you people for this", because it's another example of a minority group demanding that they be listened to above all else.
I just objected to
> the vehemance and dogmatic nature of your protests on these issues.
> And if telling people to shut up and go back to watching Eastenders
> isn't intellectual snobbery then I'm sorry I accused you.
A fair point, but I reached the point where I couldn't handle these uniformed diatribes from those who didn't watch the show.
I had tried repeatedly and politely to say "well, I can see that you might be offended, but let me try to explain the reason behind this", and nobody listened.
I posted time and time again, calmly, rationally and politely in order that someone might calm down enough to read and think "ok, well..maybe I got it wrong."
I'm not claiming to be omnipotent, I apologised to someone today in another thread because I was intially hostile to them due to a misunderstanding.
But speaking nicely and calmly was getting nowhere, for every single rational post that I,and you, and Your Honour made, we were drowned out by the minority merely repeating what they had seen and read elsewhere.
So I reached a point where I had to shout myself in order to be heard, because being an adult wasn't working.
Someone can only take so much of being drowned out by screams of others, and I especially took offence at the fact that those yelling loudest and hardest had not even watched the show.
Sandman, this is not an attack on you whatsoever mate, because we are thrashing this out in a nice, calm manner.
I'm just trying to explain why I went from "Look, please listen to what that show was about" to "Damn you people for this", because it's another example of a minority group demanding that they be listened to above all else.
sandman wrote:
> Sorry you're right, that wasn't particularly clear.
No problem Sandman.
I have posted a lot in a number of threads over the past couple of days, and trying to keep it all straight ain't easy.
If you read back from the start (not being rude, just making a point), the initial posts were hysterical calls to ban this guy from tv and C4 should be punished.
Being a major fan of both Morris and starical humour in general, I tried to say "look, I can see you're upset, but it wasn't really about what you think it is" and explained what Morris likes to do, because if you're unfamiliar with his work, it will not be "got" the 1st time.
That's not intellectualy snobbery, that's from someone that 1st listened to Blue Jam and didn't have a clue what was going on, I looked into it and learned about Morris.
I spent an age saying, calmly and repeatedly "Please, just tell me why you are offended? What upset you because there was nothing in there to promote child abuse", but everyone just continued to shout and post opinions based on other people's, because only yourself and Any have admitted that they watched any of it.
Which is when it started to annoy me that everyone was shouting, and hadn't bothered to watch the show, they were caught up in this mass hysteria.
And then the attacks on me personally started, which I will not tolerate from anyone that walks this planet.
I posted the phone numbers for the shows and dared those people jumping up and down to speak to someone directly to their face, who would then ask them why they were upset.
Nobody took me up on that, everyone shrinked back and posted nothing further.
I will discuss things with anyone that is calm and makes valid points, simply because I have had enough with batting away angry people that didnt even watch the show.
Like yourself, we've talked about this over some threads and we've both made valid points.
But that's because we watched it, we are able to argue/talk because we have information gained from 1st hand experience, not recycled from bloody newspapers.
That was why I told people to shut up, because I am sick of listening to people crying out, who neither watched the show or had the courage to phone the producers.
> Sorry you're right, that wasn't particularly clear.
No problem Sandman.
I have posted a lot in a number of threads over the past couple of days, and trying to keep it all straight ain't easy.
If you read back from the start (not being rude, just making a point), the initial posts were hysterical calls to ban this guy from tv and C4 should be punished.
Being a major fan of both Morris and starical humour in general, I tried to say "look, I can see you're upset, but it wasn't really about what you think it is" and explained what Morris likes to do, because if you're unfamiliar with his work, it will not be "got" the 1st time.
That's not intellectualy snobbery, that's from someone that 1st listened to Blue Jam and didn't have a clue what was going on, I looked into it and learned about Morris.
I spent an age saying, calmly and repeatedly "Please, just tell me why you are offended? What upset you because there was nothing in there to promote child abuse", but everyone just continued to shout and post opinions based on other people's, because only yourself and Any have admitted that they watched any of it.
Which is when it started to annoy me that everyone was shouting, and hadn't bothered to watch the show, they were caught up in this mass hysteria.
And then the attacks on me personally started, which I will not tolerate from anyone that walks this planet.
I posted the phone numbers for the shows and dared those people jumping up and down to speak to someone directly to their face, who would then ask them why they were upset.
Nobody took me up on that, everyone shrinked back and posted nothing further.
I will discuss things with anyone that is calm and makes valid points, simply because I have had enough with batting away angry people that didnt even watch the show.
Like yourself, we've talked about this over some threads and we've both made valid points.
But that's because we watched it, we are able to argue/talk because we have information gained from 1st hand experience, not recycled from bloody newspapers.
That was why I told people to shut up, because I am sick of listening to people crying out, who neither watched the show or had the courage to phone the producers.
Goatboy wrote:
And sandman, thanks for the personal attacks dude, I
> think I'm going to cry or something now...*sniff sniff*
Someone
> has to stand up at some point and say "Shut up, you have no
> clue what you're saying here."
I did it, and I'll do it again,
> call me what you will.
I didn't post this as a wholesale personal attack. I generally agree with the majority of your post and have found you to be one of the most amusing and interesting posters on this site. From the movies, TV and music you've talked about I would rate your judgement on these matters as fairly sound.
I just objected to the vehemance and dogmatic nature of your protests on these issues. And if telling people to shut up and go back to watching Eastenders isn't intellectual snobbery then I'm sorry I accused you.
And sandman, thanks for the personal attacks dude, I
> think I'm going to cry or something now...*sniff sniff*
Someone
> has to stand up at some point and say "Shut up, you have no
> clue what you're saying here."
I did it, and I'll do it again,
> call me what you will.
I didn't post this as a wholesale personal attack. I generally agree with the majority of your post and have found you to be one of the most amusing and interesting posters on this site. From the movies, TV and music you've talked about I would rate your judgement on these matters as fairly sound.
I just objected to the vehemance and dogmatic nature of your protests on these issues. And if telling people to shut up and go back to watching Eastenders isn't intellectual snobbery then I'm sorry I accused you.
sandman wrote:
> I would tend to disagree with you
> to a certain extent over the freedom of expression as I feel that
> although I would switch off the BNP, some may not and it could str
> up feelings that hurt people in the community. To be honest, maybe
> we are not ready for full freedom of expression.
I'd agree with that last sentiment totally, particularly as much of the 'freedom' is one-way only. I won't go into it here, as it's moving away from the main topic, but there's a lot of things I could discuss that would probably see me barred!
> I would tend to disagree with you
> to a certain extent over the freedom of expression as I feel that
> although I would switch off the BNP, some may not and it could str
> up feelings that hurt people in the community. To be honest, maybe
> we are not ready for full freedom of expression.
I'd agree with that last sentiment totally, particularly as much of the 'freedom' is one-way only. I won't go into it here, as it's moving away from the main topic, but there's a lot of things I could discuss that would probably see me barred!
It'll be no surprise to regulars that I have to agree with Goatboy. His views are very close to my own.
Both C4 and Sky One have in the past shown a number programs which 'offend' my own moral standings, but I haven't complained for the very reasons that Goatboy has put across - I don't have to watch it. Everyone has at least three other channels, and it that fails, there's an off switch.
I don't complain because, while I may not agree with the content, others may not be bothered. I don't like people telling me what I can and can't watch, so I certainly won't be so hypocritical as to try and tell them. Everyone is offended by different things, and trying not to offend *anyone* is a futile task; that said, if it should ever be achieved, TV would be so mundane and boring that it wouldn't be worth watching.
Both C4 and Sky One have in the past shown a number programs which 'offend' my own moral standings, but I haven't complained for the very reasons that Goatboy has put across - I don't have to watch it. Everyone has at least three other channels, and it that fails, there's an off switch.
I don't complain because, while I may not agree with the content, others may not be bothered. I don't like people telling me what I can and can't watch, so I certainly won't be so hypocritical as to try and tell them. Everyone is offended by different things, and trying not to offend *anyone* is a futile task; that said, if it should ever be achieved, TV would be so mundane and boring that it wouldn't be worth watching.
Goatboy wrote:
> And what I actually put in my "highly offensive post"
> was:
By all means, have your opinions. Disagree with something,
> complain. But make sure your complaints and views are directly and
> solely to do with the subject at hand, and make sure you are
> informed of the situation.
What was offensive about this post was the fact that you said this in direct contradiction to the way you had been posting over the last couple of days which basically boiled down to insulting people who disagreed with you. That is what I thought was offensive.
> And what I actually put in my "highly offensive post"
> was:
By all means, have your opinions. Disagree with something,
> complain. But make sure your complaints and views are directly and
> solely to do with the subject at hand, and make sure you are
> informed of the situation.
What was offensive about this post was the fact that you said this in direct contradiction to the way you had been posting over the last couple of days which basically boiled down to insulting people who disagreed with you. That is what I thought was offensive.
Page: