As a child, I can remember watching the “Basil Brush” show on the BBC. Basil Brush was a roguish fox puppet whose punch-line was “Boom Boom” when he cracked a one-liner. He disappeared for a number of years from our UK TV screens but has made a welcome return in recent times. But now he’s in trouble – with accusations of anti-gipsy racism thrown his way.
The craven BBC have backed away from supporting their fox. Bosses admitted that an episode which caused offence was “inappropriate” and have told police it will not be shown again. Officers have now decided no further action will be taken. The bizarre complaint was made by a gipsy living on a travellers’ site in Northamptonshire. He alleged a scene showing a gipsy woman trying to sell the puppet fox wooden pegs and heather was offensive and insulting. (To foxes?) The gipsy made an official complaint to Northamptonshire Police, which referred the matter to its Hate Crimes Unit. Last week, after speaking to police officers, the BBC reviewed the tapes and offered not to show the episode again.
Isn’t this so PATHETIC? Why are the Police wasting any resource pursuing this stupid allegation? Why is the BBC behaving so cowardly? This may seem a small event of little significance but in fact it is the failure of the BBC, and also the Police, to categorically dismiss the complaint concerned, that aids the daily advance of the toxic politically correct agenda which is in turn paralysing our free speech. How long before the BBC bans Cher’s “Gypsies, tramps and thieves”? I mean just think of all the offence THAT one gives to minority groups!
See what you did there? You got it so the result of both was “offending the religiously observant”. But that includes a lot of other things as well, such as two men having bottom-sex behind closed doors.
Perpetuating stereotypes for the sake of lazy writing tips the political debate on the rights and wrongs of the people at whom the stereotypes are directed. If you still think Muslims are getting an easier ride on this than Christians watch the Vicar of Dibley. Or cut your own knees off with a hacksaw, whichever you find more enjoyable.
The essential difference is that the one attacks persons no longer living on this earth, while the other promotes hatred, discrimination and even violence against British citizens.
Like I said, must mean you’re right.
That’s such a thorough and well thought-out counter-argument I’m going to declare you the winner. Have a gold star.
The essential difference is that the one attacks persons no longer living on this earth
Now I thought that the prophet was no longer living on the earh, so why not publish the cartoons?
Also to be nitpicking, Alex is clearly not a Christian or he would realise that the Resurrection and the words of Jesus clearly indicate that he is actually still with us, no such claim was ever made by the prophet or his followers.
“Now I thought that the prophet was no longer living on the earh, so why not publish the cartoons?”
As I said, the news report could work perfectly well without them.
“Also to be nitpicking, Alex is clearly not a Christian or he would realise that the Resurrection and the words of Jesus clearly indicate that he is actually still with us, no such claim was ever made by the prophet or his followers.”
If I may nitpick as well, the way Jesus is/would be “living” on earth is not really the same method as your average human. You could also nitpick prepositions and say that ‘on’ doesn’t really work with an omnipresent being. Or that the living/dead thing in this case is more a legal than a theological distinction.
The essential difference is that the one attacks persons no longer living on this earth, while the other promotes hatred, discrimination and even violence against British citizens.
Ok, here is your argument again. It is a false comparison. JSTO you say is different to the cartoon issue.
Well both attack people who are no longer living on the earth. Publishing the cartoons can only promote, hatred and discrimination and violence by muslims on non-muslims. I suspect that that is what you mean and if so, the BBC is following a policy of appeasement, and giving in to blackmail.
The BBC should not then be surprised to see more militant action from extreme evangelical Christians, since the BBC has shown that such action will deliver results. The analogy I made earlier with the Human Embryology Bill and the more aggressive stance of teh Roman Catholic Church is another example of what will begin to happen more and more. Aggression gets results, expect more aggression. Appeasement has never succeeded in the past it is unlikley to succeed now.
There were two prongs to my argument. Living/dead and great loss/no loss.
The cartoons, unlike JSTO, could be omitted from the report without any loss to the BBC save a slight decrease in clarity.
The episode of Casualty, unlike JSTO, attacked living persons (in the mortal and legal sense) and, again, could easily be stripped of its offensive content without much effort or loss by the BBC.
The episode of Basil Brush, unlike JSTO, also attacked living persons (in the mortal and legal sense). Now in this case, yes, like Christian Voice demanded of the BBC regarding JSTO, they agreed not to screen the episode again. But for the BBC the loss of a half-hour episode of a low-budget children’s program is not comparable to the loss of a two-hour West End hit.
The cartoons, unlike JSTO, could be omitted from the report without any loss to the BBC save a slight decrease in clarity
That’s drivel. If the cartoons had not already been published on the net the BBC audience would not have had the faintest idea of what the issue was about. It was not possible to discuss the issue with any degree of clarity without having seen them. The BBC denied that information to all those license payers who did not have web access.
The remainder of your argument seems to degenerate into a mere commercial rather than moral decision. WE caused offence to a very large proportion of the people from whom we extract money by menaces because in doing so we made shed loads of money.
Somehow I think the real John Reith would have been horrified
“That’s drivel. If the cartoons had not already been published on the net the BBC audience would not have had the faintest idea of what the issue was about.”
Possibly the case. But a very large number of other broadcasters also declined to publish the cartoons, in fact it was actually news when they were published rather than when they weren’t.
“The remainder of your argument seems to degenerate into a mere commercial rather than moral decision.”
Probably is a hefty part of it. It’s not in the spirit of its founders, it’s not what most of us want from the BBC, but it’s not the same as political bias. And who’s the BBC to be making moral decisions?
Commercial cowardice is one thing, although the funding of the BBC by a poll tax is meant to avoid the necessity for it to act like Sky. But the Moral decision in this case muslim/christian leads to bias.
It is quite clear that the BBC treats Christian opinion and Muslim opinion differently and is thus biased in favour of Islam.
Maybe the BBC should take a leaf out of Bristol City Council’s book.
“A council has withdrawn books for an anti-homophobia programme at two primary schools following an outcry from predominantly Muslim parents.
Bristol City Council said it temporarily removed books and teaching materials at Easton Primary School and Bannerman Road Community School.”
“In Islam homosexual relationships are not acceptable, as they are not in Christianity and many other religions, but the main issue is that they didn’t bother to consult with parents. There was no option to withdraw the child.”
Full Article
Is there a way of opting out of paying the licence fee without getting hate mail from TVLA?
“It is quite clear that the BBC treats Christian opinion and Muslim opinion differently and is thus biased in favour of Islam.”
It might tread more carefully on Muslim issues, but this will be for a variety of reasons and not just because it bums the Imams.