NationStates Jolt Archive

See this


BBC to face the High Court
following Jerry Springer opera

The BBC is facing legal action in the High Court following its broadcast of ‘Jerry Springer the Opera’. Solicitors acting on behalf of The Christian Institute have written to the BBC informing the Corporation of the Institute’s intention to seek a judicial review of the BBC’s decision to broadcast the show on 8 January.

The show contains hundreds of swear words and features God the Father, Jesus Christ, Mary, Adam and Eve and Satan as warring guests on a special edition of the Jerry Springer show – staged in Hell. The show includes a portrayal of Jesus as a childish, foul-mouthed woman-beater with a sexual predilection for human excrement and who declares himself to be ‘a bit gay’. It also features an attempt by Eve to masturbate Jesus.

The Institute says the broadcast was deeply offensive to Christians and was a clear breach of the BBC’s Royal Charter. The charter requires the BBC not to broadcast material that ‘offends against good taste or decency’ or is ‘offensive to public feeling.’ The Institute also believes the BBC has discriminated against Christians by singling out the Christian faith for the kind of abuse that no other faith would receive.

Speaking today, Colin Hart (Director of The Christian Institute) said: “I think this is the most offensive and spiteful show ever broadcast by the BBC. There may be many shows running in West End theatres that I find offensive, but I am not paying for them to be pumped into my living room. I am appalled that a publicly funded body should be so contemptuous of the people who pay for its upkeep. The BBC has a duty to respect the religious beliefs of its viewers. The BBC has special privileges as a result of how it is funded. But that means it also has special responsibilities.”

“Genuine religious debate and criticism is one thing, but this show is an offensive, spiteful, systematic mockery and wilful denigration of Christian belief. It is inconceivable that the BBC would broadcast a show that abused the prophet Mohammed or Guru Nanak in the same way. Why is Christianity singled out for such gratuitous and spiteful abuse? If the BBC can broadcast such an offensive show, then what will be broadcast next? What is the point of broadcasting standards if the BBC can so easily flout them? That is why The Christian Institute is seeking a judicial review of the BBC’s decision to broadcast Jerry Springer the Opera.”

Note for Editors:

1. The Christian Institute has no relationship to the organisation called ‘Christian Voice’. The legal action by The Christian Institute is entirely separate from any private blasphemy prosecution which we understand may be brought.

2. The Institute deplores any opposition to ‘Jerry Springer - The Opera’ which is conducted in an intimidating and harassing manner. We seek to make our case through democratic means.

3. Our legal action is on the grounds that the BBC has broken its own Royal Charter and, as a public body, has discriminated against Christians.

What are your opinons on this. Personaly I think its fair and just. I cant possibly see the BBC broadcasting something like this which would offend Muslims. And though it can be said that this is simmilar to the play attacking Shieks in Birmingham (Behzti) the diffrence here is that it is being broadcast into everyone's homes. At least with a play you dont have to pay for it, but here you have to pay the lisence fee for this.

Although I didn't watch the aired musical (who the hell wants to watch an musical about the jerry springer show?) I do find it ridiculous that they're sueing the bbc over it.

I'd also be interested to find out what they're sueing them under, probably "inciting religious hatred"?

From what I understand of it, it's satire, showing that if anything people are putting shows such as that above religion, therefore stating the opposite.

As for christians watching it, if its on the bbc and you don't want to watch it, do what any other British Citizen with half a brain does, turn the channel or go read a book.

A complaint? That I could understand, sueing the corporation for it? Come on, what "loss" has anyone incurred as a result of it being aired that couldn't have been avoided by their own common sense?

Bunch of retards...

Although I didn't watch the aired musical (who the hell wants to watch an musical about the jerry springer show?) I do find it ridiculous that they're sueing the bbc over it.

I'd also be interested to find out what they're sueing them under, probably "inciting religious hatred"?

From what I understand of it, it's satire, showing that if anything people are putting shows such as that above religion, therefore stating the opposite.

As for christians watching it, if its on the bbc and you don't want to watch it, do what any other British Citizen with half a brain does, turn the channel or go read a book.

A complaint? That I could understand, sueing the corporation for it? Come on, what "loss" has anyone incurred as a result of it being aired that couldn't have been avoided by their own common sense?

Bunch of retards...

1) Because the BBC is a public body, the British public have to pay for it. The logic being that you shouldnt have to pay for your religion to be grossly insulted

2) They are suing them under the grounds that they have broken their royal charter (read the press release)

That still bellies the fact that it's satire.

One could air candide and do the same thing, would people be as outraged?

Personally, I think censorship of that kind is something that should be discouraged in an already overly PC network.

That still bellies the fact that it's satire.

One could air candide and do the same thing, would people be as outraged?

Personally, I think censorship of that kind is something that should be discouraged in an already overly PC network.

Let me ask you this though, is it likely that the BBC would ever broadcast something akin to this level of insult about Islam?

Also, what is Candide?

That still bellies the fact that it's satire.

One could air candide and do the same thing, would people be as outraged?

Personally, I think censorship of that kind is something that should be discouraged in an already overly PC network.

Satire or not, I found it offensive just reading it. To bad I don't live in Britain or I'll be out in the streets protesting this. Thank God the BBC is getting sued for this outrage.

No, you're right, it isn't likely.

I think it should though.

In the UK with charges of inciting religious and racial hatred being introduced discussion in any form of these subjects is going to become taboo.

Programs which promote discussion and even piss people off every now and again over varying religions can only encourage people to learn more about the religions involved.

When censorship of this kind is enacted, both in the BBC as in the Brimingham play, all it does is serve to stunt cultural expression (I'll reming you that the play in Birmingham was actually written by a sikh woman).

Candide was a novel written by Voltaire in the 18th century. It satirised the role of the church, wars, love, naivety, while mainly critisicizing various idea's of Liebniz.

It's a really funny book, I recommend it highly.

Programs which promote discussion and even piss people off every now and again over varying religions can only encourage people to learn more about the religions involved.


There is a diffrence between discussion and vilonet insult. I sugest you learn that diffrence.

Then I guess we just have a difference of opinion.

I don't consider it a violent insult, you do.

I think if you step back an look at the intention behind it, its alot easier not to take it as one.

Then I guess we just have a difference of opinion.

I don't consider it a violent insult, you do.

I think if you step back an look at the intention behind it, its alot easier not to take it as one.

I can gaurentee you sir, that if this was broadcasted here in the states, the FCC would've been inundated with complaints.

I find what they did offensive and I didn't even watch it because it was over in Britain. Keep it over there.

I think if you step back an look at the intention behind it, its alot easier not to take it as one.

What exactly IS the intention behind it? I can't see any other than to have a very sick joke at Christians expense.

whine whine whine we are oppressed because we dont get our way all the time whine whine

id care more if it wasnt the christian institute bringing the suit. any group with christian in its name reduces my care level for their case to 0

whine whine whine we are oppressed because we dont get our way all the time whine whine

id care more if it wasnt the christian institute bringing the suit. any group with christian in its name reduces my care level for their case to 0

Oh so you find a show that mocks christians as unoffensive? How they protrayed Jesus is enough to incite my blood let alone where it took place.

Now that I have that out of the way, who is whining?

What annoys me is the double standards of it all. If it insulted some minority religion like Islam they wouldn't have broadcasted it. But if it insults Christianity then it's OK. I don't really think this sort of stuff should be coming from a public broadcasting company.

Oh so you find a show that mocks christians as unoffensive? How they protrayed Jesus is enough to incite my blood let alone where it took place.

Now that I have that out of the way, who is whining?
you.
"How they protrayed Jesus is enough to incite my blood let alone where it took place. "

and no, i find that whenever christian groups protest something i dont care

whine whine whine we are oppressed because we dont get our way all the time whine whine

id care more if it wasnt the christian institute bringing the suit. any group with christian in its name reduces my care level for their case to 0

I see, and would you have the same level of indiffrence if it was Gay's being insulted to a horrific level. Or Africans, or Muslims?

and no, i find that whenever christian groups protest something i dont care

But you are quite supportive of Gay minority protests?

I see, and would you have the same level of indiffrence if it was Gay's being insulted to a horrific level. Or Africans, or Muslims?
i havnt said one thing about the broadcast, i am talknig about the group protesting it and "christian" groups in general

But you are quite supportive of Gay minority protests?
i will not contineu debating you on THAT subject because in said topic you repeatedly proved yourself an incompetent, ignorant, stubborn fool

i havnt said one thing about the broadcast, i am talknig about the group protesting it and "christian" groups in general

You havent answered my question. Why do you hold Christian groups in such contempt but are quite happy to support Gay groups (I have seen the "Straight pride" protest parade so I know you support Gay pride marching). You cant just hold one group of people in contempt for protesting and support all others.

you.
"How they protrayed Jesus is enough to incite my blood let alone where it took place. "

and no, i find that whenever christian groups protest something i dont care

I was not whining my friend. I was making a statement. If I was whining I would've posted something abit more childish than that.

i will not contineu debating you on THAT subject because in said topic you repeatedly proved yourself an incompetent, ignorant, stubborn fool

Arnt we mature. Personal insults! Well my arguement falls at your feat!

I hate it when people complain about Religious hatred. Like those Siks that protested about that play in Birmingham, was it? A while back. If you don't want to be insulted then don't go and watch it, people should seriously take a chill pill. So people are making fun of you? Whats it too you? The sane people in the world don't take it as an offence.

Muslims also recognise Jesus as a prophet of God so surely if it's "offensive" to Christians it must also be for Muslims?

EDIT: The BBC also broadcasted revisionist conservative propaganda on the subject of a shit-headed pigfucker (Ronald Reagan) at Christmas. I found this level bullshit in a program which is probably meant for schoolchildren extremely offensive. Do I get to complain about this?

I hate it when people complain about Religious hatred. Like those Siks that protested about that play in Birmingham, was it? A while back. If you don't want to be insulted then don't go and watch it, people should seriously take a chill pill. So people are making fun of you? Whats it too you? The sane people in the world don't take it as an offence.

Theres a diffrence. Its not so much here that its just religiously offensive. Its religously offenceive to the point that it breaks the BBC's royal charter. Also you have to pay for the BBC all the time, (The lisence fee) and so I dont think its fair to be paying for that kind of stuff to be on the air.

There is a diffrence between discussion and vilonet insult. I sugest you learn that diffrence.

Have you actually seen the opera in question? I have, and I can assure you that it did promote quite a lot of discussion afterwards. Nobody rose up 'vilonetly' against Christians in the streets afterwards, surprise surprise. This country has Christianity as its official state religion (otherwise nobody would have got the jokes, for a start). Christian religion is taught in public school. Christians are FAR from a persecuted minority. That said, no religion has the right to dictate what everyone in the country can watch.

The opera was broadcast at 10 pm with MANY MANY MANY warnings so that people could change over. Anyone who watched it, did so willingly. It was a two hour show, and the bits with Jesus, etc. were in the last hour, after many a swear word in the 'standard' Jerry Springer show segment that takes place in the first act. You had to wait patiently to get to any 'blasphemy.' I can't see any young people sitting through it for a start--this was waily high-opera stuff, and it was very long. Every break, warnings were repeated. You couldn't have seen this without knowing what kind of show it was.

Anyone who would decide against a religion because they saw a comic opera that poked fun at some of said religion's principal characters (or who would take the comic portrayals as literal truth) is a few mushy peas short of a fish'n'chip special--or is being allowed by their parents to stay up far past standard bedtime (this was a school night as well).

I was delighted to get the chance to see this show. I also pay BBC's fees and I could never have afforded the £100+ to go to London and see the show live. I did feel it was a good experience for me, and my right to have seen it is just as important as those of any Christian who WILLINGLY SAT THROUGH THIS and then has the nerve to complain of offence.

That goes doubly for anyone who hasn't even seen the show and is relying on other people to tell them what was in it, and STILL acts all offended.

You havent answered my question. Why do you hold Christian groups in such contempt but are quite happy to support Gay groups (I have seen the "Straight pride" protest parade so I know you support Gay pride marching). You cant just hold one group of people in contempt for protesting and support all others.
bring it up again and i will gladly add you to my ignore list

Theres a diffrence. Its not so much here that its just religiously offensive. Its religously offenceive to the point that it breaks the BBC's royal charter. Also you have to pay for the BBC all the time, (The lisence fee) and so I dont think its fair to be paying for that kind of stuff to be on the air.

Yes but you're paying for a whole year of TV, if one night, a couple of hours, insults you then you start being offended. Its silly to complain about something that wont bother you ever again, and you didn't have to watch in the first place. Even if they did brake their 'Royal Charter', just because its the principle of the thing you don't have to sue people.

bring it up again and i will gladly add you to my ignore list

nice! Ignore someone that would like a legitament question answered. Way to be mature dude.

nice! Ignore someone that would like a legitament question answered. Way to be mature dude.
your one to talk

and i will not answer him as i have REPEATEDLY tried to reason with him in the appropriate thread for his topic, he is either too stubborn or stoo stupid to realise what i said and repeated his argument verbatem

your one to talk

and i will not answer him as i have REPEATEDLY tried to reason with him in the appropriate thread for his topic, he is either too stubborn or stoo stupid to realise what i said and repeated his argument verbatem

I didn't have a question directed at me. When I do have a question directed at me, I normally respond to it in a respectful manner. As for your responses to him, you have used insults in your replies and that does make you look immaturish.

Have you actually seen the opera in question? I have, and I can assure you that it did promote quite a lot of discussion afterwards. Nobody rose up 'vilonetly' against Christians in the streets afterwards, surprise surprise. This country has Christianity as its official state religion (otherwise nobody would have got the jokes, for a start). Christian religion is taught in public school. Christians are FAR from a persecuted minority. That said, no religion has the right to dictate what everyone in the country can watch.

Yes and we still have a Queen but that counts for bugger all. Christianity taught in state schools! Don't make me laugh. I knew more about bloody well Islam then Christianity when I finished R.E.
And no one has a right to make people pay so that they can broadcast something that will greatly offend them :mad:

1) Because the BBC is a public body, the British public have to pay for it. The logic being that you shouldnt have to pay for your religion to be grossly insulted

2) They are suing them under the grounds that they have broken their royal charter (read the press release)

1) and why not? if this is the case when that thing on the BNP party, they should sue...

2) If this is the case then "have i got news for you" should be constenly sued from, laber, liberals, consertive and well everyone.

Personaly i did not see it but i wish i did. and if you knew you would be insulted by why watch... AND THEN COMPLANE!!! i'm going to stop now as i can feel a rant building

I can gaurentee you sir, that if this was broadcasted here in the states, the FCC would've been inundated with complaints.

I find what they did offensive and I didn't even watch it because it was over in Britain. Keep it over there.

I bet you'd write a letter, wouldn't you? You're actually willing to complain about a programme you haven't even seen! How can that be considered intelligent commentary?

What do FCC standards have to do with the BBC under any context? You can't say 'the f word' on US airwaves in any context whatever. Luckily the FCC only rules the US airwaves, and your cultural standards don't rule over the entire globe, much as you might like them to. Nor are they superior. They're just your cultural standards, which is why thousands of Americans complained about seeing Janet Jackson's nipple at the last Superbowl, whilst Canadians who saw the same half-time show barely batted an eyelash.

It blows my mind that you are so terrified of sex and religious blasphemy after 10 p.m., but seeing shocking violence, multiple murders, etc., is A-OK for dinnertime viewing. CSI is the most popular show you've got, I hear. It's a good show, but my god it's violent. Don't people learn anything from watching shows like that? If Jerry Springer: The Opera is going to change people's attitudes about Christianity, violent programming like that will surely make them violent, too?

(Me, I don't think anyone mentally balanced changes their worldview based on television, but this is the tack censors invariably take)

Luckily for supporters of free speech in the USA, the opera is going on the road so people who'd like to see it will be able to do so on Broadway--if they can afford it, at least.

1)2) If this is the case then "have i got news for you" should be constenly sued from, laber, liberals, consertive and well everyone.

There is half a point in there. the fact that they take the piss out of everyone is what saves them. It is a string of one liners and thats it then they find a new victim. The program in question spent 2 hours on one victim

And no one has a right to make people pay so that they can broadcast something that will greatly offend them :mad:

If that were the case, nobody would have to pay tv licence fees at all. No matter what is on, it is offending somebody somewhere. I don't think there should be any sacred cows, especially not for something broadcast AFTER the watershed, with MULTIPLE warnings. And I pay the fees as well.

You know what offends me on the BBC? Songs of Praise.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/songsofpraise/

And that's more than a one-time shot of a two-hour show. Many, many years of Songs of Praise forced on the public surely makes up for that one programme. I mean come on, Aled Jones???

I bet you'd write a letter, wouldn't you? You're actually willing to complain about a programme you haven't even seen! How can that be considered intelligent commentary?

Thing of it is, it was broadcasted in Britain, not the US! I do have BBC at home but I'm not at home right now. I am attending a university that is away from home.

What do FCC standards have to do with the BBC under any context? You can't say 'the f word' on US airwaves in any context whatever. Luckily the FCC only rules the US airwaves, and your cultural standards don't rule over the entire globe, much as you might like them to. Nor are they superior. They're just your cultural standards, which is why thousands of Americans complained about seeing Janet Jackson's nipple at the last Superbowl, whilst Canadians who saw the same half-time show barely batted an eyelash.

I never said that I wanted the FCC to control the whole world. In reality, there are times where I want to kill the FCC over some of their rulings. Your right it is our cultural standards and, just like other cultures, take ours seriously. As for Janet Jackson, she got what she deserved. That whole family is going down the tubes and that is a crime shame.

It blows my mind that you are so terrified of sex and religious blasphemy after 10 p.m., but seeing shocking violence, multiple murders, etc., is A-OK for dinnertime viewing. CSI is the most popular show you've got, I hear. It's a good show, but my god it's violent. Don't people learn anything from watching shows like that? If Jerry Springer: The Opera is going to change people's attitudes about Christianity, violent programming like that will surely make them violent, too?

I'm terrified of sex and religious blasphemy? Sorry not me. I put up with it every day from people on here and listening to it on TV from Athiests and other religious wackos. I tend to ignore most of it but when you put Jesus in there, that insults not only one religion but TWO! That's right Two. The Muslims hold him up to be a prophet. Did you know that? I did. As for CSI, I wouldn't know. I don't watch the program because I don't honestly care. I tend for a movie (The Patriot, Hunt for Red October, The Sum of All fears, etc) or another tv show or I just watch a movie or one of the seasons of my favorite tv shows. As for making people violent because they watched it, it could to a point. Around here, Jackass, was a big hit but people died trying to imitate it. Also, some people have said they were inspired to steal cars from other movies but so far, I still have access to those movies.

(Me, I don't think anyone mentally balanced changes their worldview based on television, but this is the tack censors invariably take)

I can agree with you there!

Luckily for supporters of free speech in the USA, the opera is going on the road so people who'd like to see it will be able to do so on Broadway--if they can afford it, at least.

On broadway eh? I'll be expecting to see protests there but then again, there are so many protests going on that I'll probably ignore the protest because I'm sick and tired of them but I won't go see it either.

The intention to me, seems to have been to create something groundbreaking that highlighted the complete stupidity and arrogance of the Jerry Springer show and the depths to which it was willing to sink in order to get ratings.

Its a comment on humanism and voyeurism.

If you ask me, portraying jesus in a diaper and as "a little gay" is an appropriate remark to be directed at many christian churches. The idea that they are so anti-gay and that this is if anything quite possibly childish.

There are a thousand different ways you can look at this thing if you just step and back and go, hey, you know maybe they've got a point.

That is, instead of screaming OMG! THE HATE THE HATE! SUE THEM!!!!!!shift+111!!!

Christian Institute of UK sues BBC for broadcast of "Jerry Springer - The Oprea"

Good! Sounds like someone should be suing them for that.

The intention to me, seems to have been to create something groundbreaking that highlighted the complete stupidity and arrogance of the Jerry Springer show and the depths to which it was willing to sink in order to get ratings.

Its a comment on humanism and voyeurism.

...

There are a thousand different ways you can look at this thing if you just step and back and go, hey, you know maybe they've got a point.

That is, instead of screaming OMG! THE HATE THE HATE! SUE THEM!!!!!!shift+111!!!

Look, some intelligent commentary! But then I expect you actually watched the programme rather than going by a stat-sheet with 'number of swear words' and 'number of offensive incidents' on it.

If people approach a film or show with a notebook in hand, trying to count the effing and blinding, they invariably miss the point. If you are legalistic in your approach to everything, you miss a lot. This is why church is not particularly relevant to the real world. It's become far more about all the things you aren't allowed to do and not about what good you ought to be doing.

You know it's funny, because I don't even like the real Jerry Springer Show, but the opera I thought stated its piece rather cleverly, and by quoting William Blake at that.

to me current knowlage the BBC licence is £120 for year so over 52 weeks thats £2.30 a week 32 pence a day and for the 2 hours it is on it is:
2.7472527472527472527472527472527 pence for the two hour peroid (this is if it was shown on every bbc channel, so where is this great loss???

Its a sad day when you can't say what you think for fear of getting sued.

Look, some intelligent commentary! But then I expect you actually watched the programme rather than going by a stat-sheet with 'number of swear words' and 'number of offensive incidents' on it.

If people approach a film or show with a notebook in hand, trying to count the effing and blinding, they invariably miss the point. If you are legalistic in your approach to everything, you miss a lot. This is why church is not particularly relevant to the real world. It's become far more about all the things you aren't allowed to do and not about what good you ought to be doing.

You know it's funny, because I don't even like the real Jerry Springer Show, but the opera I thought stated its piece rather cleverly, and by quoting William Blake at that.


Very true, a recent study on a single month's work of WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment) programming stated that in it there 1,500+ drug references. Now this seems shocking until you realise that these references included people drinking beer. How many times does someone drink beer in Eastenders, Cheers or Coronation Street? Be careful that you don't accept blind statistics.

As an American, I have little interest in the squabble going on over the broadcast of this show on BBC. I will say that I thought Brits had a better sense of humour than has been displayed here. It was, after all, a television show meant to entertain, not make a religious statement.

Had this same show aired here on one of our networks, I am certain there would have been a great deal of outrage expressed by the religious right, but the majority of people would have just changed the channel if it offended thier sensibilities.

I would assume from the posts in this thread, and the outcry expressed in the news, that the UK does not have Cable TV. Poor buggers.

There is half a point in there. the fact that they take the piss out of everyone is what saves them. It is a string of one liners and thats it then they find a new victim. The program in question spent 2 hours on one victim

ok then look at this, how long does a church spend on fighting gay rights... yest a small amount of my taxs goes in their subsidy. i have the choice of not going, so i don't but i still pay. so how is it different???

It's become far more about all the things you aren't allowed to do and not about what good you ought to be doing.


Agreed!


Television is made to entertain people. It is impossible for one show to entertain everybody, and it is impossible for one show to disgust everybody, because there is such a variety of viewpoints out there. I think this makes the world more interesting, because for one thing it means there can be so many kinds of television shows worth broadcasting.
You have to accept that there will be shows you will not like, or even will be offended by. "Treat others as you wish to be treated" to quote a religious guideline itself. Do not strip people who would not be offended by the programme of it, because they very well may be offended by your programmes, and strip you of those. How would you like that?

And remember that whilst Americans are probably not likely to appreciate this show because America is by a long way more religious that it is not, in Britain Christians are in the minority. And no, my point is not that that fact allows one the right to attack Christians...

This might sound stupid coming from me, if you look at the way I rule my country, but anyhow...

No we do have cable tv, and satelite.

Additionally something you'll find with alot of comedy is that it DOES make a point, political social or religious. Otherwise its kinda well, inane.

As an American, I have little interest in the squabble going on over the broadcast of this show on BBC. I will say that I thought Brits had a better sense of humour than has been displayed here. It was, after all, a television show meant to entertain, not make a religious statement.

Had this same show aired here on one of our networks, I am certain there would have been a great deal of outrage expressed by the religious right, but the majority of people would have just changed the channel if it offended thier sensibilities.

I would assume from the posts in this thread, and the outcry expressed in the news, that the UK does not have Cable TV. Poor buggers.

What if it had been symbols of the Muslim faith being denigrated while the program proffered itself as "humor?" Say, showing a prostitute trying to masturbate a mulla, and the sacred sites of Islam being shown with a McDonald's in the center?

I can just imagine the outcry. :rolleyes:

What if it had been symbols of the Muslim faith being denigrated while the program proffered itself as "humor?" Say, showing a prostitute trying to masturbate a mulla, and the sacred sites of Islam being shown with a McDonald's in the center?

I can just imagine the outcry. :rolleyes:
a prostitute trying to masterbate a mulla isnt funny because its a prositute, a mcdonalds shack at the back of a muslim something or other is funny

What if it had been symbols of the Muslim faith being denigrated while the program proffered itself as "humor?" Say, showing a prostitute trying to masturbate a mulla, and the sacred sites of Islam being shown with a McDonald's in the center?

I can just imagine the outcry. :rolleyes:

As I have already stated in this thread, Muslims recognise Jesus as a prophet of God. One could say that Jesus is a symbol of the Muslim faith.

As I have already stated in this thread, Muslims recognise Jesus as a prophet of God. One could say that Jesus is a symbol of the Muslim faith.

Yep and why the muslims should be outraged too but since Jesus is mostly classified as a Christian symbol, they probably don't care.

We should hope that on account of the superior british national character this frivolous suit will be thrown out and the religious maniacs responsible be held up by the media as examples of the bad citizens that they are.


I have faith in the british, their 10 pound note is graced by Charles Darwin.

Its a sad day when you can't say what you think for fear of getting sued.

If you "think" whats in the Jerry Springer opera I think you need to go to a mental instution. The Jerry Springer Opera is not a political expression of opinion.

We should hope that on account of the superior british national character this frivolous suit will be thrown out and the religious maniacs responsible be held up by the media as examples of the bad citizens that they are.


I think people are making a mistake in this. People think that we are suing them just because they are offended. However the BBC have a contract to the public, a royal charter. This means that if they break that contract they have a right to sue, and it would seem this has broken that contract. If anyone can seriouly believe that this kind of broadcast would have insulted Islam or Hinduisim to this level then either you are extremely liberal or extremely naieve. Its not "Wa wa we are offended", its "You broke a promise to the public, you now have to stand to justice"

It's not to be taken litrally, if everyone got affended by television programs then some of the most popular ones, such as Little Britain would be taken of the air like that, by gays, the disabled, mentally ill, and several more groups. That just proves how petty and paranoid the christian church is. They know chrstianity, at least in Britain, is on the way out and has been for years.

I think suing someone for lack of censorship sounds a bit dodgy.

I think people are making a mistake in this. People think that we are suing them just because they are offended. However the BBC have a contract to the public, a royal charter. This means that if they break that contract they have a right to sue, and it would seem this has broken that contract. If anyone can seriouly believe that this kind of broadcast would have insulted Islam or Hinduisim to this level then either you are extremely liberal or extremely naieve. Its not "Wa wa we are offended", its "You broke a promise to the public, you now have to stand to justice"
ponit to what part of the charter is being broken

Heh, it's not likely that any legal action on the BBC will succeed. It might not even be given court time. An appeal to the Culture secretary, Tessa Jowell, to ban the BBC from airing the show didn't succeed. She claimed that that would be censorship and that was not the role of the state. She also expressed her distaste for the program, but felt that it should not be censored.

Anyone who watches the BBC will know that there is a fair amount of satire on everything. There is also are a lot of programs that deal with sensitive issues. I can think of one drama programme that has already dealth with suicide bombers twice, one in which a Birmingham Cleric was training children to be suicide bombers and one child was strapped with explosives and killed himself.

Finally, Channel 4, which is also under public charter, is looking into screening excerpts of Behzti as part of an investigation into beliefs.

We should hope that on account of the superior british national character this frivolous suit will be thrown out and the religious maniacs responsible be held up by the media as examples of the bad citizens that they are.


I have faith in the british, their 10 pound note is graced by Charles Darwin.

Here here!


Heh, it's not likely that any legal action on the BBC will succeed. It might not even be given court time. An appeal to the Culture secretary, Tessa Jowell, to ban the BBC from airing the show didn't succeed. She claimed that that would be censorship and that was not the role of the state. She also expressed her distaste for the program, but felt that it should not be censored.

Anyone who watches the BBC will know that there is a fair amount of satire on everything. There is also are a lot of programs that deal with sensitive issues. I can think of one drama programme that has already dealth with suicide bombers twice, one in which a Birmingham Cleric was training children to be suicide bombers and one child was strapped with explosives and killed himself.

Finally, Channel 4, which is also under public charter, is looking into screening excerpts of Behzti as part of an investigation into beliefs.

A further point to this, we've been concentrating on the BBC when this gent has quite rightly noted that Channel 4 is also under public charter. With the number of highly controversial shows aired on that channel, we've heard many complaints but lawsuits? Come on, these people need to suck it up and stop acting as if someone ran up to them and smacked them in the face with an inverted crucifix.

Let 'em do it. I'd normally object, but the BBC has an unfair advantage in the market because of its massive public subsidies. I like to see them sufffer.

Typical uptight fundies...

These are the same people who antagonize followers of other religions in the same way, why should they have protection from being made fun of?

Comedy is comedy... Its ok to be tasteless and funny simultaniously.

Typical uptight fundies...

These are the same people who antagonize followers of other religions in the same way, why should they have protection from being made fun of?

Comedy is comedy... Its ok to be tasteless and funny simultaniously.

i agree what kind of a democracy do we live in if we cant take the piss out of religeon what can we take the piss out of.
religeouse people complain to much anyway :headbang:

Its just stupid. Christians thinking they're opinions are more important than anyone else.

An example here below......
If I believed that Robert Winston (scientist bloke and tv show host) always wore a dress when he was on television and the BBC showed him not wearing a dress, I wouldn't be taken seriously by anyone. But just because its a religion suddenly their opinions and ideas are so much more important.

i agree what kind of a democracy do we live in if we cant take the piss out of religeon what can we take the piss out of.
religeouse people complain to much anyway :headbang:

Now which religious people would that be grand britania?

Forgive me, I haven't read the whole thread, just wanted to add what I'd heard (sorry if I repeat what anyone else has said). I saw a debate on telly about this. Christian groups were complaining that they shouldn't have to pay a licence fee for this. Someone said, "I'm not a Christian; why should I have to pay a licence fee to fund programs such as Songs of Praise?"

As far as I'm concerned, they should go ahead and show Songs of Praise etc, but equally they should show stuff that other groups find entertaining. I turn it over or off if I don't like it - why is it such a big deal for everyone else to do the same?

Forgive me, I haven't read the whole thread, just wanted to add what I'd heard (sorry if I repeat what anyone else has said). I saw a debate on telly about this. Christian groups were complaining that they shouldn't have to pay a licence fee for this. Someone said, "I'm not a Christian; why should I have to pay a licence fee to fund programs such as Songs of Praise?"

As far as I'm concerned, they should go ahead and show Songs of Praise etc, but equally they should show stuff that other groups find entertaining. I turn it over or off if I don't like it - why is it such a big deal for everyone else to do the same?


This is the most sensible thing that anyone on either side has said so far in this thread. The marvlous thing about TVs is that you can turn them off.

Forgive me, I haven't read the whole thread, just wanted to add what I'd heard (sorry if I repeat what anyone else has said). I saw a debate on telly about this. Christian groups were complaining that they shouldn't have to pay a licence fee for this. Someone said, "I'm not a Christian; why should I have to pay a licence fee to fund programs such as Songs of Praise?"

As far as I'm concerned, they should go ahead and show Songs of Praise etc, but equally they should show stuff that other groups find entertaining. I turn it over or off if I don't like it - why is it such a big deal for everyone else to do the same?

I dont think you understand. The Christian Inststitute people are not saying "This offends us, you shouldn't have shown it", what they are saying is "You broke a promise to the public, you must stand to justice for it"