The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Remember all that nonce-sense about Brasseye?
Tessa Jowell MP screaming about the show but ignoring the photos and lascivious comments in The Sun and The Mirror about Charlotte Church (15) and Fergie's daughters? (11 + 13)?
I emailed Tessa Jowell and asked for her opinion on the peadophiliac nature of the tabloid pics and comments in light of her decrying of Brasseye.
And, after many weeks, I get a reply.
Read and enjoy the hypocritical mindset of Ms Tessa Jowell.
------
Thank you for your email of 31 July to Tessa Jowell concerning the channel
Four program Brass Eye. The Broadcasting Policy Division within the
Department for Culture, Media and Sport deals with issues in this area and I
have been asked to respond. I apologise for the delay in replying.
Under the current broadcasting arrangements, responsibility for what is
broadcast on television and radio rests with the broadcasters and the
broadcasting regulatory bodies -the Governors of the BBC, the Independent
Television Commission (ITC), the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority (S4C) and
the Radio Authority. They are independent of the Government and accountable
for safeguarding the public interest in broadcasting. They also maintain
guidelines for programme makers on the standards which should be observed.
It is important that the views of the public are brought to the attention of
the broadcasters and regulators so they can reflect these views in their
codes and guidelines.
Within this framework it is for the broadcasters to make judgements about
the content of individual programmes and the time at which they are
broadcast, in the light of the responsibilities placed upon them and of
their more detailed programme guidelines. It is a long-standing principle
that the Government does not intervene in programme matters, either on
arrangements for scheduling or on content.
Tessa Jowell expressed her personal feelings as a viewer and a parent and
made it absolutely clear that the programme content and regulatory matters
are for the regulators to deal with and not the Government. A heavy
responsibility sits on them to safeguard public trust and confidence. For
her part, she wishes to be sure that the regulatory system is able to
respond rapidly and effectively to issues of the kind we have seen in this
case.
Newspapers and periodicals remain wholly independent of the Government. The
responsibility to decide what, and what not, to publish, subject to the
general law, is theirs. The Government believes that a free press is a
cornerstone of democracy, and as such, does not wish to control the
editorial content of newspapers or magazines.
Newspapers operate a system of self-regulation through the Press Complaints
Commission (PCC), which is an independent body set up by the newspaper
industry to ensure that British newspapers and magazines follow the
industry's code of practice. The Government expects the press to abide by
the rules and commitments enshrined in the PCC's Code of Practice and
continues to monitor alleged press abuses and the PCC's handling of them.
If you have not already done so, you might want to direct your concern about
this matter to the relevant editor.
I hope this information is helpful
Yours sincerely
Betty Yabrifa
Policy Advisor
Tessa Jowell MP screaming about the show but ignoring the photos and lascivious comments in The Sun and The Mirror about Charlotte Church (15) and Fergie's daughters? (11 + 13)?
I emailed Tessa Jowell and asked for her opinion on the peadophiliac nature of the tabloid pics and comments in light of her decrying of Brasseye.
And, after many weeks, I get a reply.
Read and enjoy the hypocritical mindset of Ms Tessa Jowell.
------
Thank you for your email of 31 July to Tessa Jowell concerning the channel
Four program Brass Eye. The Broadcasting Policy Division within the
Department for Culture, Media and Sport deals with issues in this area and I
have been asked to respond. I apologise for the delay in replying.
Under the current broadcasting arrangements, responsibility for what is
broadcast on television and radio rests with the broadcasters and the
broadcasting regulatory bodies -the Governors of the BBC, the Independent
Television Commission (ITC), the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority (S4C) and
the Radio Authority. They are independent of the Government and accountable
for safeguarding the public interest in broadcasting. They also maintain
guidelines for programme makers on the standards which should be observed.
It is important that the views of the public are brought to the attention of
the broadcasters and regulators so they can reflect these views in their
codes and guidelines.
Within this framework it is for the broadcasters to make judgements about
the content of individual programmes and the time at which they are
broadcast, in the light of the responsibilities placed upon them and of
their more detailed programme guidelines. It is a long-standing principle
that the Government does not intervene in programme matters, either on
arrangements for scheduling or on content.
Tessa Jowell expressed her personal feelings as a viewer and a parent and
made it absolutely clear that the programme content and regulatory matters
are for the regulators to deal with and not the Government. A heavy
responsibility sits on them to safeguard public trust and confidence. For
her part, she wishes to be sure that the regulatory system is able to
respond rapidly and effectively to issues of the kind we have seen in this
case.
Newspapers and periodicals remain wholly independent of the Government. The
responsibility to decide what, and what not, to publish, subject to the
general law, is theirs. The Government believes that a free press is a
cornerstone of democracy, and as such, does not wish to control the
editorial content of newspapers or magazines.
Newspapers operate a system of self-regulation through the Press Complaints
Commission (PCC), which is an independent body set up by the newspaper
industry to ensure that British newspapers and magazines follow the
industry's code of practice. The Government expects the press to abide by
the rules and commitments enshrined in the PCC's Code of Practice and
continues to monitor alleged press abuses and the PCC's handling of them.
If you have not already done so, you might want to direct your concern about
this matter to the relevant editor.
I hope this information is helpful
Yours sincerely
Betty Yabrifa
Policy Advisor
Page:
Just in case anybody is interested there is a website that lets you fax your MP (or I suppose any MP) for FREE. I faxed mine and received a reply within about 2 weeks.
This has to be the easiest way to communicate with your MP and the url is http://www.faxyourmp.co.uk/
PS you need to Know your Postcode.
This has to be the easiest way to communicate with your MP and the url is http://www.faxyourmp.co.uk/
PS you need to Know your Postcode.
Corleone, go read a few more threads you dolt.
Why, after being banned twice, do you come here?
Nobody likes you, nobody wants you and nobody appreciates your 14yr old taunts.
Seriously, go to the Life forum and read the threads there about the USA.
Idiot.
Why, after being banned twice, do you come here?
Nobody likes you, nobody wants you and nobody appreciates your 14yr old taunts.
Seriously, go to the Life forum and read the threads there about the USA.
Idiot.
So let moi get this straight, you people defend brass eye and then are sucked in by all this media hype surrounding l'america? saying that we should take books off shelves and ban movies from being shown?
so what about the earth quake in india? should that happening mean for all books about earthquakes or even mentioning the word, to be censored,.........................................
no. because you people arefm
so what about the earth quake in india? should that happening mean for all books about earthquakes or even mentioning the word, to be censored,.........................................
no. because you people arefm
(Dan's reviews are a bit like that.)
Agree with Loki 100%
I dont think it was a deliberate misinformation thing, but anyone watching, Mr Normal that hasn't bothered to check up himself will watch Panorama and think "Dirty Murdering Arab", there was nothing about his history ,his personality, his CIA history.
Just the same old footage of the buildings, the Propoganda videos from Bin Laden etc etc.
It said nothing and did nothing except to whip up more hysterical bloodlust.
And Tess Jowell's response...how can she write so much whilst saying so little?
Evasive, non committal waffly bo-lacks.
I dont think it was a deliberate misinformation thing, but anyone watching, Mr Normal that hasn't bothered to check up himself will watch Panorama and think "Dirty Murdering Arab", there was nothing about his history ,his personality, his CIA history.
Just the same old footage of the buildings, the Propoganda videos from Bin Laden etc etc.
It said nothing and did nothing except to whip up more hysterical bloodlust.
And Tess Jowell's response...how can she write so much whilst saying so little?
Evasive, non committal waffly bo-lacks.
To be fair to the makers of Panarama, the ommision of the US assistance to Bin Laden didn't strike me as political bias.
The programme was just rubbish. It gave hardly any insight into his background, upbringing in Saudi, or his politics. Just a couple of bland interviews with people that met him recently and lots of footage of the WTC attack.
What was the point? We've seen those pictures ad nauseum and this documenatry was supposed to be a valuable insight into the perceived enemy - not yet another review of the week. There's been plenty of that.
In fact, the media's use of these images is now becoming frankly disturbing. And horrific media coverage will only get worse when US action begins. (as the rock band L7 put it after the Gulf War: "Wargasm, Wargasm on TV, smutty bloody pictures, ecstacy").
Anyway I think the Panarama programme was just incompetant, rather than deliberately hiding the truth.
The programme was just rubbish. It gave hardly any insight into his background, upbringing in Saudi, or his politics. Just a couple of bland interviews with people that met him recently and lots of footage of the WTC attack.
What was the point? We've seen those pictures ad nauseum and this documenatry was supposed to be a valuable insight into the perceived enemy - not yet another review of the week. There's been plenty of that.
In fact, the media's use of these images is now becoming frankly disturbing. And horrific media coverage will only get worse when US action begins. (as the rock band L7 put it after the Gulf War: "Wargasm, Wargasm on TV, smutty bloody pictures, ecstacy").
Anyway I think the Panarama programme was just incompetant, rather than deliberately hiding the truth.
Goatboy wrote:
> Yup.
So I've asked her what her response is to Panorama's programme on Osama
> Bin Laden and why it neglected to mention his CIA connections in training,
> financial assistance, his refuting of the attack last Tuesday etc etc.
She
> says that newspapers are out of governmental control, but Panorama isn't.
So that means that Panorama was until government control, so therefore the government must have told them not to reveal the Usama Bin Laden stuff you've just mentioned.
Hmmm, where's this freedom of speech and democracy that is supposedly under attack? Seems we've already lost it.
> Yup.
So I've asked her what her response is to Panorama's programme on Osama
> Bin Laden and why it neglected to mention his CIA connections in training,
> financial assistance, his refuting of the attack last Tuesday etc etc.
She
> says that newspapers are out of governmental control, but Panorama isn't.
So that means that Panorama was until government control, so therefore the government must have told them not to reveal the Usama Bin Laden stuff you've just mentioned.
Hmmm, where's this freedom of speech and democracy that is supposedly under attack? Seems we've already lost it.
Hmm. What she basically said was:
"Blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah."
She said nothing at all.
"Blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah."
She said nothing at all.
Yup.
So I've asked her what her response is to Panorama's programme on Osama Bin Laden and why it neglected to mention his CIA connections in training, financial assistance, his refuting of the attack last Tuesday etc etc.
She says that newspapers are out of governmental control, but Panorama isn't.
Ah well, just got another 9 weeks to wait for a reply then.
So I've asked her what her response is to Panorama's programme on Osama Bin Laden and why it neglected to mention his CIA connections in training, financial assistance, his refuting of the attack last Tuesday etc etc.
She says that newspapers are out of governmental control, but Panorama isn't.
Ah well, just got another 9 weeks to wait for a reply then.
General MP tosh, then.
Page: