View Full Version : These people who complain...
About what they see on the TV, hear on the Radio...etc....
Sad *******s the lot of them, honest to god get a grip of yourself and find yourself a life.
Change the station, flick the channel and find something else, don't pick up a bloody phone or write a one hundred paragraph email asking for people to be sacked/some form of action to be taken
I and many others don't want to hear your thoughts on why entertainers should be sacked and how you are deeply traumatised about what you heard.
Argh rant over but this upsurge is concerning.
Just Jimmy
09-02-2009, 02:11 PM
About what they see on the TV, hear on the Radio...etc....
Sad *******s the lot of them, honest to god get a grip of yourself and find yourself a life.
Change the station, flick the channel and find something else, don't pick up a bloody phone or write a one hundred paragraph email asking for people to be sacked/some form of action to be taken
I and many others don't want to hear your thoughts on why entertainers should be sacked and how you are deeply traumatised about what you heard.
Argh rant over but this upsurge is concerning.
instead come on a website and moan about people moaning :greengrin
Hibbyradge
09-02-2009, 02:57 PM
About what they see on the TV, hear on the Radio...etc....
Sad *******s the lot of them, honest to god get a grip of yourself and find yourself a life.
Change the station, flick the channel and find something else, don't pick up a bloody phone or write a one hundred paragraph email asking for people to be sacked/some form of action to be taken
I and many others don't want to hear your thoughts on why entertainers should be sacked and how you are deeply traumatised about what you heard.
Argh rant over but this upsurge is concerning.
Too right! :thumbsup:
People should take what they're given and just be thankful about it. :agree:
Bloody cheeky whippersnappers having the audacity to question the BBC.
:grr:
Woody1985
09-02-2009, 03:04 PM
About what they see on the TV, hear on the Radio...etc....
Sad *******s the lot of them, honest to god get a grip of yourself and find yourself a life.
Change the station, flick the channel and find something else, don't pick up a bloody phone or write a one hundred paragraph email asking for people to be sacked/some form of action to be taken
I and many others don't want to hear your thoughts on why entertainers should be sacked and how you are deeply traumatised about what you heard.
Argh rant over but this upsurge is concerning.
I'm sure the Daily Record are determined to get some people sacked from the BBC.
Every time Jonathon Ross speaks it's reported what he's been talking about. Fair enough, what he done was out of order, he's apologised, let it go.
instead come on a website and moan about people moaning :greengrin
I had realised that after posting:greengrin
Too right! :thumbsup:
People should take what they're given and just be thankful about it. :agree:
Bloody cheeky whippersnappers having the audacity to question the BBC.
:grr:
I'm detecting the faintest bit of sarcasm there:greengrin
I'm sure the Daily Record are determined to get some people sacked from the BBC.
Every time Jonathon Ross speaks it's reported what he's been talking about. Fair enough, what he done was out of order, he's apologised, let it go.
That's my real problem here, people seem to think that anything offends them nowadays let's complain and even though we are in the minority we will get someone sacked and that papers will help as they love to scaremonger.
--------
09-02-2009, 05:48 PM
About what they see on the TV, hear on the Radio...etc....
Sad *******s the lot of them, honest to god get a grip of yourself and find yourself a life.
Change the station, flick the channel and find something else, don't pick up a bloody phone or write a one hundred paragraph email asking for people to be sacked/some form of action to be taken
I and many others don't want to hear your thoughts on why entertainers should be sacked and how you are deeply traumatised about what you heard.
Argh rant over but this upsurge is concerning.
You are so, SO right. I'm amazed no one's posted this before now. I salute your perspicacity.
You are so, SO right. I'm amazed no one's posted this before now. I salute your perspicacity.
How come the people on here that do not agree entirely with what I am saying reply with such a tone?
Why not just come out and make a valid point?
Not aimed completely at you Doddie but it came accross as a smart arse reply more than an actual reasoned response.
--------
09-02-2009, 06:34 PM
How come the people on here that do not agree entirely with what I am saying reply with such a tone?
Why not just come out and make a valid point?
Not aimed completely at you Doddie but it came accross as a smart arse reply more than an actual reasoned response.
Oh. I took my tone from the tone of your opening post, in which you characterised those who disagreed with YOU as "sad *******s the lot of them" and suggested they find themselves a life.
Not exactly reasoned argument, IMO. :wink:
To be brief - it seems that if I complain publicly about something that offends me in the media, that is offensive to you and I should shut up.
But YOU, on the other hand, can offend MY ears by complaining about me (and others) complaining - but I shouldn't defend my position, as that would be ME complaining again, which offends you, and I should shut up.
I think I've grasped you argument.
What you seem to have entirely failed to realise is that I am always right.
:greengrin
Gatecrasher
09-02-2009, 06:38 PM
About what they see on the TV, hear on the Radio...etc....
Sad *******s the lot of them, honest to god get a grip of yourself and find yourself a life.
Change the station, flick the channel and find something else, don't pick up a bloody phone or write a one hundred paragraph email asking for people to be sacked/some form of action to be taken
I and many others don't want to hear your thoughts on why entertainers should be sacked and how you are deeply traumatised about what you heard.
Argh rant over but this upsurge is concerning.
:top marksthey need to get a life
have you seen that show on bbc when they read the emails out :faf:
Oh. I took my tone from the tone of your opening post, in which you characterised those who disagreed with YOU as "sad *******s the lot of them" and suggested they find themselves a life.
Not exactly reasoned argument, IMO. :wink:
To be brief - it seems that if I complain publicly about something that offends me in the media, that is offensive to you and I should shut up.
But YOU, on the other hand, can offend MY ears by complaining about me (and others) complaining - but I shouldn't defend my position, as that would be ME complaining again, which offends you, and I should shut up.
I think I've grasped you argument.
What you seem to have entirely failed to realise is that I am always right.
:greengrin
Ahh you see now that was a reasoned reply, not just a quip.
I just think that people who have nothing better to do than complain are setting standards that will see the entertainment in this country have to watch every single thing they say and do...not a very pleasent road to go down when the minority have a say over what the majority should see and watch.
Also I believe I may have offended your eyes and not your ears seeing as you read what I had to say instead of listened to it:greengrin
Hibbyradge
09-02-2009, 06:53 PM
Ahh you see now that was a reasoned reply, not just a quip.
I just think that people who have nothing better to do than complain are setting standards that will see the entertainment in this country have to watch every single thing they say and do...not a very pleasent road to go down when the minority have a say over what the majority should see and watch.
Also I believe I may have offended your eyes and not your ears seeing as you read what I had to say instead of listened to it:greengrin
You sound like one of the people who you are attempting to belittle.
Do you know anyone who has nothing better to do than complain?
People complain because their values and beliefs have been undermined.
Your values and beliefs are no more important than anyone elses.
Be careful if you think people shouldn't complain. If you don't complain, you get trampled on.
hibsbollah
09-02-2009, 06:54 PM
About what they see on the TV, hear on the Radio...etc....
Sad *******s the lot of them, honest to god get a grip of yourself and find yourself a life.
Change the station, flick the channel and find something else, don't pick up a bloody phone or write a one hundred paragraph email asking for people to be sacked/some form of action to be taken
I and many others don't want to hear your thoughts on why entertainers should be sacked and how you are deeply traumatised about what you heard.
Argh rant over but this upsurge is concerning.
I agree with you:agree:
You sound like one of the people who you are attempting to belittle.
Do you know anyone who has nothing better to do than complain?
People complain because their values and beliefs have been undermined.
Your values and beliefs are no more important than anyone elses.
Be careful if you think people shouldn't complain. If you don't complain, you get trampled on.
Do you realy believe that these people are being trampled on?...does it not tell you something that a small group of people complained after the initiial broadcast by Brand & Ross yet as soon as a fuss was made over it these people almost actively went out of their way to listen to the broadcast and then complain about it just for the sake of it.
If you don't like the actor/presenter/comedian then don't watch them, what gets me is that there seems a strange fascination lately to go out of your way to watch someone and then become insensed when they say something that may offend you.
Hibbyradge
09-02-2009, 07:45 PM
Do you realy believe that these people are being trampled on?...does it not tell you something that a small group of people complained after the initiial broadcast by Brand & Ross yet as soon as a fuss was made over it these people almost actively went out of their way to listen to the broadcast and then complain about it just for the sake of it.
If you don't like the actor/presenter/comedian then don't watch them, what gets me is that there seems a strange fascination lately to go out of your way to watch someone and then become insensed when they say something that may offend you.
I didn't say they were being tram[pled on. I said their values and be;liefs were being undermined.
The point is, they feel aggrieved.
[B]
If you don't like the actor/presenter/comedian then don't watch them, what gets me is that there seems a strange fascination lately to go out of your way to watch someone and then become insensed when they say something that may offend you.
The latest complaints were about the BBC breakfast show. No-=one was looking for anything to complain about.
Like it or not Greg, some folk have very strong personal and religious beliefs and they are entitled to them. Hearing the F word at 7.00 in the morning would deeply offend a lot of people, particularly if their children were exposed to it.
They shouldn't be pilloried for being like that either. No-one is ever offended or hurt by someone not swearing.
Not everyone leads their life like us.
--------
09-02-2009, 08:29 PM
Ahh you see now that was a reasoned reply, not just a quip.
I just think that people who have nothing better to do than complain are setting standards that will see the entertainment in this country have to watch every single thing they say and do...not a very pleasent road to go down when the minority have a say over what the majority should see and watch.
Also I believe I may have offended your eyes and not your ears seeing as you read what I had to say instead of listened to it:greengrin
How'd you know I didn't read it aloud to myself?
Or that as I read text, that text is realised in my mind as sound rather than black symbols on white?
And who says the majority are right about entertainment?
Go with the majority vote and we'll end up with "The X Factor" and "Eastenders" and "Spiderman" and "Mamma Mia" and "Big Brother" and all those ghastly cooking programs and home improvement programs and Jonathan Ross and Noel Edmonds and Ant and Dec (green heavin' boakin' smilie - enough already!) - bread and circuses for the intellectually- and aesthetically-challenged. :devil:
Culturally, anything worth keeping is usually a minority taste.... :wink:
MrRobot
10-02-2009, 12:02 AM
About what they see on the TV, hear on the Radio...etc....
Sad *******s the lot of them, honest to god get a grip of yourself and find yourself a life.
Change the station, flick the channel and find something else, don't pick up a bloody phone or write a one hundred paragraph email asking for people to be sacked/some form of action to be taken
I and many others don't want to hear your thoughts on why entertainers should be sacked and how you are deeply traumatised about what you heard.
Argh rant over but this upsurge is concerning.
:agree:
Why did it actually offend anybody listening about what Russell Brand and Jonathon Woss said ? I thought it was quite funny TBH and was jsut childish humour. Even Andrews Sachs said to forget it.
All because it's in the media, it seems taht people are brainwashed into thinking it's the latest craze to complain about somebody and get their job put at risk. Really is sad when somebody can't watch TV and not get offended by a simple joke. I bet half the people who complain about stuff it doesnt actually apply to them in anyway(so how it offends them I dont know) but just want something to do.
Sad, sad people.
Steve-O
10-02-2009, 05:18 AM
I just simply can't get my head round why someone would be "hurt" or offended by hearing a swear word? I mean come on? "Hurt" FFS?? Sounds like Steven Fletcher's transfer trauma, now that's TRUE hurt :agree::wink:
Hibbyradge
10-02-2009, 07:47 AM
I just simply can't get my head round why someone would be "hurt" or offended by hearing a swear word? I mean come on? "Hurt" FFS?? Sounds like Steven Fletcher's transfer trauma, now that's TRUE hurt :agree::wink:
Morning/evening Steve. I now look forward to our regular early morning spats. :wink:
I'm surprised that you don't understand that people are offended by swear words. Words that are often used for that specific purpose. I can't get my head round that.
I know quite a few people who don't swear and who would be offended if I did in their company.
I don't know any parents who routinely swear in front of their children, but I accept they do exist.
As far as being "hurt" by a swear word is concerned, I'm not sure anyone suggested that they would be "hurt".
However, on reflection, I guess I called my gran an "F'in C", she would be very hurt. She would also be grossly offended n a number of levels.
Morning/evening Steve. I now look forward to our regular early morning spats. :wink:
I'm surprised that you don't understand that people are offended by swear words. Words that are often used for that specific purpose. I can't get my head round that.
I know quite a few people who don't swear and who would be offended if I did in their company.
I don't know any parents who routinely swear in front of their children, but I accept they do exist.
As far as being "hurt" by a swear word is concerned, I'm not sure anyone suggested that they would be "hurt".
However, on reflection, I guess I called my gran an "F'in C", she would be very hurt. She would also be grossly offended n a number of levels.
How can you compare swearing at an elderly family member to a genuine mistake being made on morning television?
Woody1985
10-02-2009, 12:25 PM
How can you compare swearing at an elderly family member to a genuine mistake being made on morning television?
I think he was giving a reply to Steve-o to show that you can hurt someone with a comment and not using it for comparison.
I agree that there are a bunch of sado's who seem to complain at every opporunity (not just about TV / comedians etc). Just human nature that people will be happy, depressed, moaners etc. I just wish that they wouldn't get people that a lot of others like banned.
This might sound slightly sad :greengrin but I actually phoned Ofcom to see if it was possible to put in an anti-complaint because I was sick of all the moaners trying to get Clarkson sacked about the trucker joke.
Unfortunately there is no official anti complaint but they said the comments would be taken into consideration.
We should have some kind of poll for everything.
GlesgaeHibby
10-02-2009, 03:26 PM
:agree:
Why did it actually offend anybody listening about what Russell Brand and Jonathon Woss said ? I thought it was quite funny TBH and was jsut childish humour. Even Andrews Sachs said to forget it.
All because it's in the media, it seems taht people are brainwashed into thinking it's the latest craze to complain about somebody and get their job put at risk. Really is sad when somebody can't watch TV and not get offended by a simple joke. I bet half the people who complain about stuff it doesnt actually apply to them in anyway(so how it offends them I dont know) but just want something to do.
Sad, sad people.
It didn't personally offend me, but I'm sure it was pretty hurtful to Andrew Sachs, and that is what the point is. They invaded the guys privacy and made derogatory remarks about his grand-daughter. It was a form of harassment and was rightly punished. Brand and Ross have been punished now, hopefully they learn from it, time to move on.
As to complaints about opinions, get a grip.
Hibbyradge
10-02-2009, 04:04 PM
How can you compare swearing at an elderly family member to a genuine mistake being made on morning television?
I wasn't.
I was responding to Steve O's increduility.
He thought soneone had said people had been hurt by a swear word. No-one had, but i pointed out that it was possible.
Like you, he hadn't read the comments properly. :wink:
jabis
10-02-2009, 08:45 PM
I wish to register my EXTREME displeasure,at having to read what could only be described as,CRASS......nay....DIFFERING,points of view.
These "people" (for wont of a better word )are patently trying to IMFLAME the VAST minority of decent folk,who,in my humble opinion,just want porridge for breakfast.
yours
outraged newhaven
p.s. launch the lot of them
p.p.s. (the ones that dissagree with me)
MrRobot
10-02-2009, 08:59 PM
It didn't personally offend me, but I'm sure it was pretty hurtful to Andrew Sachs, and that is what the point is. They invaded the guys privacy and made derogatory remarks about his grand-daughter. It was a form of harassment and was rightly punished. Brand and Ross have been punished now, hopefully they learn from it, time to move on.
As to complaints about opinions, get a grip.
So why not leave it to him to air his feelings instead of complaining about it. Wasn't the complainers' granddaughters that they were saying it about.
So why not leave it to him to air his feelings instead of complaining about it. Wasn't the complainers' granddaughters that they were saying it about.
:agree:
Who sdid extremely well for herself out of it.
Wonder if the Daily Mail readers knew they were filling the pockets of a trashy porn star.
Hibbyradge
10-02-2009, 09:59 PM
:agree:
Who sdid extremely well for herself out of it.
Wonder if the Daily Mail readers knew they were filling the pockets of a trashy porn star.
You just don't get it, do you?
Andrew Sachs didn't deserve to be treated the way he was.
The behaviour of his Granddaughter has got nothing whatsoever to do with it.
"A trashy porn star"? Jeezo.
You are a Daily Mail reader.
You just don't get it, do you?
Andrew Sachs didn't deserve to be treated the way he was.
The behaviour of his Granddaughter has got nothing whatsoever to do with it.
"A trashy porn star"? Jeezo.
You are a Daily Mail reader.
Why don't I get it, because I do not agree with your opinion?
Awww come on HR.
Do you really believe for a second this outrage was not managed to a level that both would do well out of this.
If i am not mistaken Sachs is abot to make a come back on TV and the daughter made front page news for weeks.
Oh yeah and it was all because two guys made a off the cuff joke at their expense.
Bollocks, they knew they could turn this in their favourand did so. quite happy to see people lose their jobs over it aswell.
GlesgaeHibby
11-02-2009, 07:36 AM
So why not leave it to him to air his feelings instead of complaining about it. Wasn't the complainers' granddaughters that they were saying it about.
There has to be a limit to what is considered humour, and once you hit harassment its stepping over the line.
They were punished though, so those that have complained to the BBC over this need to accept that and move on.
Hibbyradge
11-02-2009, 07:54 AM
Why don't I get it, because I do not agree with your opinion?
"Andrew Sachs didn't deserve to be treated the way he was.
The behaviour of his Granddaughter has got nothing whatsoever to do with it."
In what way is that an opinion. It is quite clearly a fact.
Awww come on HR.
Do you really believe for a second this outrage was not managed to a level that both would do well out of this.
If i am not mistaken Sachs is abot to make a come back on TV and the daughter made front page news for weeks.
Oh yeah and it was all because two guys made a off the cuff joke at their expense.
Bollocks, they knew they could turn this in their favourand did so. quite happy to see people lose their jobs over it aswell.
You don't get it, because you have decided that Andrew Sachs somehow deserved his treatment because,
a) you don't approve of his daughter's reported behaviour and,
b) they publicised what had happened to them.
Following your logic, if a victim makes some money out of what happened, they are somehow worse than the perpetrater. Particularly if you don't particularly like them.
You are blaming the innocent victims.
Now that's bollocks.
Unless you're saying that Ross and Brand hatched a plan with Sachs and his GD to bring them into the limelight?
What would that kind of behaviour make your heroes? How "funny" would their comments be then?
Bollocks, they knew they could turn this in their favourand did so. quite happy to see people lose their jobs over it aswell.
And that is an ill-informed and nasty insult.
Steve-O
11-02-2009, 08:36 AM
Morning/evening Steve. I now look forward to our regular early morning spats. :wink:
I'm surprised that you don't understand that people are offended by swear words. Words that are often used for that specific purpose. I can't get my head round that.
I know quite a few people who don't swear and who would be offended if I did in their company.
I don't know any parents who routinely swear in front of their children, but I accept they do exist.
As far as being "hurt" by a swear word is concerned, I'm not sure anyone suggested that they would be "hurt".
However, on reflection, I guess I called my gran an "F'in C", she would be very hurt. She would also be grossly offended n a number of levels.
Morning :greengrin
It was you who mentioned the word "hurt" above, when you said nobody is ever offended or hurt by anyone not swearing. This infers that some people are hurt and offended by someone swearing.
Personally, I can't see why certain swearing is offensive, but I accept there are those out there, and in certain circumstances it is not appropriate. I also accept the gran example, but you could still hurt someone with words that do not include swearing i.e. "you are a daft auld goat and I've never liked ye!".
Maybe I will revise my point to say I can't understand people who would get SO offended and/or hurt that they would make a huge deal of it, unless of course they or a family member had directly been sworn AT.
Andrew Sachs never even got the message left by JC & RB. They pre recorded his answer phone message & played that. Andrew Sachs heard the recording via the Dially Mail. I agree they went to far. But Russell Brand has made a career out of people selling there stories to rags about him & no doubt Andrew Sachs granddaughter has made a pretty penny aswell as re-launching Mr Sachs televison career (countdown, corrie) I also beleive that sales of Fawlty towers went up something like 300% & the publicity her group the satanic sluts have got is more than they could of wished for EVER.
Some folk complain for the sake of complaining its typical of this country & its PC brigade.
They have apologised & as far as I can work out the "victims" have had the last laugh.
CB_NO3
11-02-2009, 10:44 AM
About what they see on the TV, hear on the Radio...etc....
Sad *******s the lot of them, honest to god get a grip of yourself and find yourself a life.
Change the station, flick the channel and find something else, don't pick up a bloody phone or write a one hundred paragraph email asking for people to be sacked/some form of action to be taken
I and many others don't want to hear your thoughts on why entertainers should be sacked and how you are deeply traumatised about what you heard.
Argh rant over but this upsurge is concerning.
I agree, sad *****s
Flynn
11-02-2009, 11:55 AM
The point is, they feel aggrieved.
The latest complaints were about the BBC breakfast show. No-=one was looking for anything to complain about.
Like it or not Greg, some folk have very strong personal and religious beliefs and they are entitled to them. Hearing the F word at 7.00 in the morning would deeply offend a lot of people, particularly if their children were exposed to it.
They shouldn't be pilloried for being like that either. No-one is ever offended or hurt by someone not swearing.
Not everyone leads their life like us.
I suggest people who complain about swear words they hear on TV should have a good look at the state of the world around them and then have a nice cup of "shut the f*** up"
There are far more serious things to get offended about going on right under our noses. Lying to go to war. Use of depleted uranium in civilian areas in war. Global Warming. Dwindling energy supplies. Politicians blatantly doing whats best for corporations rather than the people they are employed to represent. People dying of starvation when there are individuals richer than countries out there. F***witts (like that single mother erse in America who had 8 kids on top of the 6 she already had) who insist on having huge families in a time of population explosion and food shortages. And many more...I could go on all day but I won't.
Be offended by something worth getting angry at FFS!
Hibbyradge
11-02-2009, 04:13 PM
Morning :greengrin
It was you who mentioned the word "hurt" above, when you said nobody is ever offended or hurt by anyone not swearing. This infers that some people are hurt and offended by someone swearing.
Erm, no it doesn't.
Morning :greengrin
Personally, I can't see why certain swearing is offensive, but I accept there are those out there, and in certain circumstances it is not appropriate. I also accept the Gran example, but you could still hurt someone with words that do not include swearing i.e. "you are a daft auld goat and I've never liked ye!".
Very true. Another example would be if, you called someone a one-eyed Scottish idiot.
Morning :greengrin
Maybe I will revise my point to say I can't understand people who would get SO offended and/or hurt that they would make a huge deal of it, unless of course they or a family member had directly been sworn AT.
Personally, I can't see why certain swearing is offensive,
Try harder, it's really not that difficult.
They have different values and beliefs from us.
For whatever reason, swearing is an important issue to them.
Like football is important to those of us who go to games. :devil:
Although I don't object to swearing in a lot of circumstances, I'd be really annoyed if someone swore in the presence of my Gran, never mind at her.
Hibbyradge
11-02-2009, 04:14 PM
Andrew Sachs never even got the message left by JC & RB. They pre recorded his answer phone message & played that. Andrew Sachs heard the recording via the Dially Mail. I agree they went to far. But Russell Brand has made a career out of people selling there stories to rags about him & no doubt Andrew Sachs granddaughter has made a pretty penny aswell as re-launching Mr Sachs televison career (countdown, corrie) I also beleive that sales of Fawlty towers went up something like 300% & the publicity her group the satanic sluts have got is more than they could of wished for EVER.
Some folk complain for the sake of complaining its typical of this country & its PC brigade.
They have apologised & as far as I can work out the "victims" have had the last laugh.
:woohoo: Yaay!!! About time too.
Gaun the victims. :thumbsup:
Hibbyradge
11-02-2009, 04:22 PM
I suggest people who complain about swear words they hear on TV should have a good look at the state of the world around them and then have a nice cup of "shut the f*** up"
There are far more serious things to get offended about going on right under our noses. Lying to go to war. Use of depleted uranium in civilian areas in war. Global Warming. Dwindling energy supplies. Politicians blatantly doing whats best for corporations rather than the people they are employed to represent. People dying of starvation when there are individuals richer than countries out there. F***witts (like that single mother erse in America who had 8 kids on top of the 6 she already had) who insist on having huge families in a time of population explosion and food shortages. And many more...I could go on all day but I won't.
Be offended by something worth getting angry at FFS!
I see. Unless it's important to you, folk should just put up with whatever happens.
Maybe then you could let us know at what point should people start getting angry?
Child molestation? Rape? Burglary? Drink driving? Litter louts? Graffitti? Folk skipping their bus fares? Noisy neighbours? Abled bodied people using disabled parking spaces? People not paying their TV licences? Drug pushers?
:dunno:
Woody1985
11-02-2009, 05:03 PM
I see. Unless it's important to you, folk should just put up with whatever happens.
Maybe then you could let us know at what point should people start getting angry?
Child molestation? Rape? Burglary? Drink driving? Litter louts? Graffitti? Folk skipping their bus fares? Noisy neighbours? Abled bodied people using disabled parking spaces? People not paying their TV licences? Drug pushers?
:dunno:
HibbyRadge, I've not been on here long but it seems like you just post for postings sake on some occassion and like to make an arguement out of nothing. :confused:
The guy has already listed a large list of things he/she thinks is worth getting worked up about rather than an accident involving a swear word on TV.
You've then tried to use a list of already criminal offences to try illustrate your point.:yawn:
Hibbyradge
11-02-2009, 05:15 PM
HibbyRadge, I've not been on here long but it seems like you just post for postings sake on some occassion and like to make an arguement out of nothing. :confused:
The guy has already listed a large list of things he/she thinks is worth getting worked up about rather than an accident involving a swear word on TV.
You've then tried to use a list of already criminal offences to try illustrate your point.:yawn:
Isn't that the nature of debate? :confused:
I don't think one person should tell another what they should consider important.
The people who get angry at swearing on TV obviously think it's worth getting angry about. That's up to them.
I have nothing against Flynn, but who is he, or anyone else, to tell them what's important?
Woody1985
11-02-2009, 05:30 PM
Isn't that the nature of debate? :confused:
I don't think one person should tell another what they should consider important.
The people who get angry at swearing on TV obviously think it's worth getting angry about. That's up to them.
I have nothing against Flynn, but who is he, or anyone else, to tell them what's important?
It can be a debate but it's just getting trivial and silly.
I think the original point was that the people who do / have complained are a bunch of sados. When you compare an accidental broadcast on TV to some of the other things that have been mentioned then it does get a bit silly. No one in their right mind really thinks that BBC are going to start broadcasting Scarface at the same time as the Power Rangers.
I understand that you maybe can't tell people what they can and can't complain about but it might be good if they could be influenced not to be so sad.
Re your last sentence, every law and rule we live by has created by man and every law that is passed is effectively telling you what you can/can't do and what is important and what is not.
Hibbyradge
11-02-2009, 06:42 PM
I think the original point was that the people who do / have complained are a bunch of sados.
I understand that you maybe can't tell people what they can and can't complain about but it might be good if they could be influenced not to be so sad.
And my point to all of you who are so intolerant of folk with different standards than you, is that they are not sad.
They choose to live their lives in a particular way and they expect certain behaviour from the BBC.
Do you know what really is sad?
It's sad that so may people are prepared to accept the behaviour of a rude, foul mouthed, arrogant, molly coddled egotist like Christian Bale without complaint.
Folk who don't swear and don't want to hear swearing cause no harm.
Folk who complain about swearing at 7.00 in the morning, cause no harm.
It's sad that folk critisise them for having, and trying to maintain, those standards.
Also, how many times have the BBC apologised for failing to maintain it's standards of decency?
Do you know how many times the complainants didn't write in or phone previously?
How many apologies should people accept, before complaining?
Imagine your neighbours had a noisy party at 4.00 am, causing your young baby to wake in the night, when you had to get up for work the next day. You spoke to them about it, the turned the volume down and they apologised.
Next night, the same thing. They turn the volume down and apologise again.
Next week, the same thing. They apologise.
Will you ever complain to the police or would that be too sad?
Please don't tell me that's more important.
Re your last sentence, every law and rule we live by has created by man and every law that is passed is effectively telling you what you can/can't do and what is important and what is not.
Eh? No-one can tell you what you should deem as important.
I think football and golf are important.
I think tolerance, fairness and equality are too.
I don't think Big Brother, I'm a Celebrity or soap operas like Eastenders are important. A lot of folk do.
Who's right?
And my point to all of you who are so intolerant of folk with different standards than you, is that they are not sad.
They choose to live their lives in a particular way and they expect certain behaviour from the BBC.
Do you know what really is sad?
It's sad that so may people are prepared to accept the behaviour of a rude, foul mouthed, arrogant, molly coddled egotist like Christian Bale without complaint.
Folk who don't swear and don't want to hear swearing cause no harm.
Folk who complain about swearing at 7.00 in the morning, cause no harm.
It's sad that folk critisise them for having, and trying to maintain, those standards.
Also, how many times have the BBC apologised for failing to maintain it's standards of decency?
Do you know how many times the complainants didn't write in or phone previously?
How many apologies should people accept, before complaining?
Imagine your neighbours had a noisy party at 4.00 am, causing your young baby to wake in the night, when you had to get up for work the next day. You spoke to them about it, the turned the volume down and they apologised.
Next night, the same thing. They turn the volume down and apologise again.
Next week, the same thing. They apologise.
Will you ever complain to the police or would that be too sad?
Please don't tell me that's more important.
Eh? No-one can tell you what you should deem as important.
I think football and golf are important.
I think tolerance, fairness and equality are too.
I don't think Big Brother, I'm a Celebrity or soap operas like Eastenders are important. A lot of folk do.
Who's right?
Some of your comparisons baffle me.
Woody1985
11-02-2009, 06:59 PM
It's sad that so may people are prepared to accept the behaviour of a rude, foul mouthed, arrogant, molly coddled egotist like Christain Bale without complaint.
Folk who don't swear and don't want to hear swearing cause no harm.
Folk who complain about swearing at 7.00 in the morning, cause no harm.
The person who swore is irrelevant.
The people do cause harm. That's their intention. They want some kind of justice for a mistake. They could cause someone to lose their job and their career over a mistake.
It probably won't be the first or second person who makes this type of mistake that is fired. They will get the chance to apologise and move on. It will be someone who is new, inexperienced etc that will make a mistake and because of all the publicity surrounding the other mistakes they will be punished.
It's sad that folk critisise them for having, and trying to maintain, those standards.
Also, how many times have the BBC apologised for failing to maintain it's standards of decency?
No, but they're not deliberately trying to drop their standards. As I said, they're not going out their way to put Scarface on at the same time as the Power Rangers.
No, how many?
How many apologies should people accept, before complaining?
Imagine your neighbours had a noisy party at 4.00 am, causing your young baby to wake in the night, when you had to get up for work the next day. You spoke to them about it, the turned the volume down and they apologised.
Next night, the same thing. They turn the volume down and apologise again.
Next week, the same thing. They apologise.
Will you ever complain to the police or would that be too sad?
Please don't tell me that's more important.
Another stupid example. That's a deliberate act of ignorance and complete disregard for other people.
Can't be compared to airing a clip on TV in error. If they aired it every morning then I might agree with you.
Hibbyradge
11-02-2009, 07:07 PM
Some of your comparisons baffle me.
Sorry about that.
How many times should the BBC have apologised for failing to maintain it's standards of decency before the watershed, before you wouldn't consider someone sad for making an official complaint?
Woody1985
11-02-2009, 07:09 PM
Sorry about that.
How many times should the BBC have apologised for failing to maintain it's standards of decency before the watershed, before you wouldn't consider someone sad for making an official complaint?
:faf:
Sorry about that.
How many times should the BBC have apologised for failing to maintain it's standards of decency before the watershed, before you wouldn't consider someone sad for making an official complaint?
If it was a mistake made then an apology should be enough and nobody should feel the need to complain.
I assume we are talking about the early morning swearing incident?
Hibbyradge
11-02-2009, 07:36 PM
:faf:
Good point, well made. :rolleyes:
Edit: Oops, just realised you were laughing at my little ironic joke, not my question.
Hibbyradge
11-02-2009, 07:43 PM
If it was a mistake made then an apology should be enough and nobody should feel the need to complain.
I assume we are talking about the early morning swearing incident?
Seriously? No matter how many "mistakes" are made, as long as someone apologises, no further action is required?
Is there really no point at which you would complain about incompetence or carelessness, as long as some talking head said "sorry 'bout that, it was a mistake"?
Also, you have no idea as to the circumstances of the folk who made a complaint. You also have no idea as to the terms of those complaints but you feel justified in glibly calling them "sad".
That's very unfair.
Some people take the standard of broadcasting very seriously.
Some have religious agendas.
Some merely have high standards.
Some people are old fashioned.
Just because you don't care about those things, doesn't make you right.
Hibbyradge
11-02-2009, 08:01 PM
The person who swore is irrelevant.
Indeed they are. It's still sad that so many are prepared to accept their behaviour, though.
The people do cause harm. That's their intention. They want some kind of justice for a mistake.
How do you know? Maybe they just don't want it to happen again?
They could cause someone to lose their job and their career over a mistake.
The person who made the mistake might have had something to do with that too.
It probably won't be the first or second person who makes this type of mistake that is fired. They will get the chance to apologise and move on. It will be someone who is new, inexperienced etc that will make a mistake and because of all the publicity surrounding the other mistakes they will be punished.
That would be very bad management. They should be sacked before they do any harm.
No, but they're not deliberately trying to drop their standards. As I said, they're not going out their way to put Scarface on at the same time as the Power Rangers.
How many mistakes, followed by apologies, is the BBC allowed to make before, in your eyes, I could officially complain and not be deemed as "sad"?
Another stupid example. That's a deliberate act of ignorance and complete disregard for other people.
Can't be compared to airing a clip on TV in error. If they aired it every morning then I might agree with you.
It wasn't an example. I like to think of it as a parable! :wink:
Seriously? No matter how many "mistakes" are made, as long as someone apologises, no further action is required?
It depends on the mistake, remember the BBC is the employer, so how can you justify repremanding someone for their first mistake for the company just because the BBC has previous
Is there really no point at which you would complain about incompetence or carelessness, as long as some talking head said "sorry 'bout that, it was a mistake"?
It depends on the mistake being made mate and the nature of it, there is a world of a difference between banter and abusive/unnacceptable behaviour...this w=is where everyones opinions will differ however and I accept that.
Also, you have no idea as to the circumstances of the folk who made a complaint. You also have no idea as to the terms of those complaints but you feel justified in glibly calling them "sad".
I have a general assumption of what these people are like, I may be wrong but I bet you that my perception of them is pretty much spot on, some people don;t feel alive untill they are complaining about something, no matter how trivial.
That's very unfair.
Some people take the standard of broadcasting very seriously.
And some people take their view of what broadcasting should be like and ram it down others throats.
Some have religious agendas.
Why should religion dictate national broadcasting?
Some merely have high standards.
So because I do not find this offensive I do not have high standards?
Some people are old fashioned.
True, of that I completely agree
Just because you don't care about those things, doesn't make you right.
I have tried to answer all points above.
Woody1985
11-02-2009, 08:28 PM
Indeed they are. It's still sad that so many are prepared to accept their behaviour, though.
It's not that people are accepting it the behaviour, they simply appreciate that those type of actions were aired in error.
How do you know? Maybe they just don't want it to happen again?
Anyone with a bit of common sense can see that the BBC didn't want it to happen either and therefore why complain. The BBC know it's unacceptable.
Here's a comparison, footballer makes a crap pass / silly mistake, it goes to the opposition and they score (think Pirlo last night). Does Pirlo really need to be told how crap it was and that he shouldn't do it again? No, there's some things in this world that you just know.
The person who made the mistake might have had something to do with that too.
Yes, but one mistake in your job shouldn't cost you your job. There are obviously a few exceptions ie bomb disposal expert. :tee hee:
That would be very bad management. They should be sacked before they do any harm.
The point I was making is that it wouldn't be the same person making the same mistake twice, it would be someone a couple of mistakes down the line who would lose their job.
Here's an example of what I mean;
* Think of the guy who allowed the JR/RB phone call to be aired (radio). He won't get the boot (I know someone stood down).
* Person makes mistakes and airs the wrong clip (TV).
* A guy posts an incorrect link on the website in error (internet).
By the mass hysteria causes by the first two incidents it will be the guy who posted the net clip that gets shafted for it.
How many mistakes, followed by apologies, is the BBC allowed to make before, in your eyes, I could officially complain and not be deemed as "sad"?
4. Only kidding.
It depends if it's one area consistently making mistakes.
See above example, just because it is the same corporation you cannot say 'there's been 3 mistakes now so this person should be sacked' when they are all independant.
You need to think about them logically and take each error one into consideration independantly.
If it became systematic and started a trend throughout the corporation where we were beginning to see major failings then complain as much as you like.
It wasn't an example. I like to think of it as a parable! :wink:
I'll give you that one. :LOL: Still, it was very bad. :greengrin
Sergio sledge
11-02-2009, 08:50 PM
Here's a comparison, footballer makes a crap pass / silly mistake, it goes to the opposition and they score (think Pirlo last night). Does Pirlo really need to be told how crap it was and that he shouldn't do it again? No, there's some things in this world that you just know.
So you won't be on here moaning about how crap Maka is for example if he throws the ball into the net in the next game?
I have a general assumption of what these people are like, I may be wrong but I bet you that my perception of them is pretty much spot on, some people don;t feel alive untill they are complaining about something, no matter how trivial.
Like complaining about people complaining about the BBC broadcasting someone swearing at 7 in the morning? :wink:
Woody1985
11-02-2009, 08:54 PM
So you won't be on here moaning about how crap Maka is for example if he throws the ball into the net in the next game?
No, see my previous posts on Maka. :wink:
I appreciate there are times to complain but there are times when someone has done something so fked up that it's not even worth complaining because they know they have seriously fked up.
Hibbyradge
11-02-2009, 08:57 PM
Here's a comparison, footballer makes a crap pass / silly mistake, it goes to the opposition and they score (think Pirlo last night). Does Pirlo really need to be told how crap it was and that he shouldn't do it again? No, there's some things in this world that you just know.
Ah, now here we definitely agree.
What is the point in berating a player who is playing poorly.
But that's for another hundred future threads!
It's clear that I'm not going to persuade you away from your point of view, nor you mine, so unless someone else posts a boat load of Tom Kite (imo), I'll leave it there.
Except to say, that just because someone has different values to you and different tolerances (is that a word) doesn't make them sad. In fact, to call them sad, is very intolerant.
Google "UK watershed complaints" and you'll find hundreds of stories about complaints against TV companies.
From gay kisses, to swearing, to nudity and violence.
Personally, I'm not offended by any of those things, but I absolutely defend the right of others to complain.
However, I do get annoyed when jumped up "celebrities" abuse their privileged positions and go too far across the lines of decency, for their own self aggrandizement.
Like complaining about people complaining about the BBC broadcasting someone swearing at 7 in the morning? :wink:
Exactly:greengrin
Nah, actualy this thead was more anger at how the country seems to be going than a complaint.
Either way nobody will take notice of me here so everyones jobs are safe:greengrin
Hibbyradge
11-02-2009, 09:01 PM
I have tried to answer all points above.
You tried to avoid my points more like. :wink:
Hibbyradge
11-02-2009, 09:03 PM
Exactly:greengrin
Nah, actualy this thead was more anger at how the country seems to be going than a complaint.
Either way nobody will take notice of me here so everyones jobs are safe:greengrin
Eh? 50 folk object to hearing the word ****** at 7.00 am and the country's gone to the dogs.
You really are a Daily Mail reader.
Tip: Try the Daily Express instead. Better class of Reader Offers. :wink:
You tried to avoid my points more like. :wink:
How exactly
Eh? 50 folk object to hearing the word ****** at 7.00 am and the country's gone to the dogs.
You really are a Daily Mail reader.
Tip: Try the Daily Express instead. Better class of Reader Offers. :wink:
Russel Brand and Jonathan Ross attracted more than 50 complaints....that was one of my main points..we just happened to move into discussing the latest situation.
The whole culture of complaining and media hounding has flared up very recently, you cannot deny that.
Woody1985
11-02-2009, 09:14 PM
Ah, now here we definitely agree.
What is the point in berating a player who is playing poorly.
But that's for another hundred future threads!
It's clear that I'm not going to persuade you away from your point of view, nor you mine, so unless someone else posts a boat load of Tom Kite (imo), I'll leave it there.
Except to say, that just because someone has different values to you and different tolerances (is that a word) doesn't make them sad. In fact, to call them sad, is very intolerant.
Google "UK watershed complaints" and you'll find hundreds of stories about complaints against TV companies.
From gay kisses, to swearing, to nudity and violence.
Personally, I'm not offended by any of those things, but I absolutely defend the right of others to complain.
However, I do get annoyed when jumped up "celebrities" abuse their privileged positions and go too far across the lines of decency, for their own self aggrandizement.
Fair enough. I was just gearing myself up for another marathon reply when I seen you'd replied. :greengrin
I'm not against their right to complain. It just seems that they are complaining for something that people at the TV station already know is wrong. Anyway, please don't reply as I'm going to bed. :LOL:
Have a good night mate.
sleeping giant
11-02-2009, 09:14 PM
And my point to all of you who are so intolerant of folk with different standards than you, is that they are not sad.
They choose to live their lives in a particular way and they expect certain behaviour from the BBC.
Do you know what really is sad?
It's sad that so may people are prepared to accept the behaviour of a rude, foul mouthed, arrogant, molly coddled egotist like Christian Bale without complaint.
Folk who don't swear and don't want to hear swearing cause no harm.
Folk who complain about swearing at 7.00 in the morning, cause no harm.
It's sad that folk critisise them for having, and trying to maintain, those standards.
Also, how many times have the BBC apologised for failing to maintain it's standards of decency?
Do you know how many times the complainants didn't write in or phone previously?
How many apologies should people accept, before complaining?
Imagine your neighbours had a noisy party at 4.00 am, causing your young baby to wake in the night, when you had to get up for work the next day. You spoke to them about it, the turned the volume down and they apologised.
Next night, the same thing. They turn the volume down and apologise again.
Next week, the same thing. They apologise.
Will you ever complain to the police or would that be too sad?
Please don't tell me that's more important.
Eh? No-one can tell you what you should deem as important.
I think football and golf are important.
I think tolerance, fairness and equality are too.
I don't think Big Brother, I'm a Celebrity or soap operas like Eastenders are important. A lot of folk do.
Who's right?
In all seriousness, you sound like a very nice man:agree::greengrin
Such a level headed humble humane poster.
I wish there were a few more like you.
Mon the manners:thumbsup:
If it was a mistake made then an apology should be enough and nobody should feel the need to complain.
I assume we are talking about the early morning swearing incident?
Really ??
How many apologies should a person accept before needing to complain?? After so many apologies and no change forthcoming, then an apology is meaningless!!
To say that people are sad if they complain is a thoughtless view in itself. People have the right to complain if they want/need to. Imagine if no one ever complained about anything in life - even TV programmes and their contents - would the world be any better?? I doubt it!
Really ??
How many apologies should a person accept before needing to complain?? After so many apologies and no change forthcoming, then an apology is meaningless!!
To say that people are sad if they complain is a thoughtless view in itself. People have the right to complain if they want/need to. Imagine if no one ever complained about anything in life - even TV programmes and their contents - would the world be any better?? I doubt it!
Ah ok, I give up here.
It is the people who complain for the sake of it that gets me, you know the people who actualy went out of their way to listen to a broadcast that attracted fewer than a few hundred complaints the first time round, yet as soon as they heard there was a controversy they were right onto it, searching it out knowing fine well it was something they would object to.
Remeber the interviews with the members of the public straight after it, old women and men who would NEVER listen to this show had their tuppense worth on it....
This is the road we are heading down, a culture where if you are offended by something you must let everyone know that you are.
Hibbyradge
11-02-2009, 09:39 PM
Ah ok, I give up here.
You probably should have, but you didn't.
Ah ok, I give up here.
It is the people who complain for the sake of it that gets me, you know the people who actualy went out of their way to listen to a broadcast that attracted fewer than a few hundred complaints the first time round, yet as soon as they heard there was a controversy they were right onto it, searching it out knowing fine well it was something they would object to.
I don't know anyone that does that. Not one. Do you?
Personally, I didn't watch the video of Al-Qaeda cutting that hostages head off. I did, however, know it was horrific and very upsetting.
I haven't listened to, or watched Ross and Brands hilarious schoolboy prank. I know it was completely out of order.
Hilarious, my erse, by the way. FFS I used to call folks numbers and shout jobbies at them when I was 10, and that wasn't yesterday.
The BBC is a national institution. It belongs to the viewers and license payers.
If people want to keep it's standards high, then good for them.
kollontai
11-02-2009, 10:43 PM
I would like to say that Ross should have been sacked for what he said-the thatcher women was rightly sacked for being a racist like her mother and clarkson although an idiot was correct when he called Gordon Brown a one eyed scottish idiot.:wink:
Steve-O
12-02-2009, 06:44 AM
Erm, no it doesn't. Erm, yes is does. If you are making the statement 'Nobody is ever hurt of offended by someone NOT swearing', then surely the opposite of that statement is 'some people ARE hurt and offended by swearing'? You've also given an example where someone could be hurt. You inferred that some people could be hurt by swearing. I never said it was in this particular instance (BBC)
Very true. Another example would be if, you called someone a one-eyed Scottish idiot.
Try harder, it's really not that difficult.
They have different values and beliefs from us.
For whatever reason, swearing is an important issue to them.
Like football is important to those of us who go to games. :devil:
Although I don't object to swearing in a lot of circumstances, I'd be really annoyed if someone swore in the presence of my Gran, never mind at her.
:wink:
I do go to games, just not Hibs ones these days.
Steve-O
12-02-2009, 06:57 AM
You probably should have, but you didn't.
I don't know anyone that does that. Not one. Do you?
Personally, I didn't watch the video of Al-Qaeda cutting that hostages head off. I did, however, know it was horrific and very upsetting.
I haven't listened to, or watched Ross and Brands hilarious schoolboy prank. I know it was completely out of order.
Hilarious, my erse, by the way. FFS I used to call folks numbers and shout jobbies at them when I was 10, and that wasn't yesterday.
The BBC is a national institution. It belongs to the viewers and license payers.
If people want to keep it's standards high, then good for them.
Sorry but you sound a bit like Mary Whitehouse with that type of statement. You, and probably countless others, haven't even listened to the broadcast in question and yet here you are sitting in judgement based on what others have said? Why don't you listen to it and decide for yourself? I fail to see how you can 100% KNOW that it's out of order when you haven't even heard it? Given that the vast majority of people who heard it have NOT complained, and therefore potentially think it wasn't out of order, how can you state it as fact that it was out of order?
And before you use the decapitation example as a defence, it's a completely different thing. Unless you are a violent extremist, then I think you would know that seeing someone getting their head cut off is going to be unpleasant.
Comedy (whether or not you find it funny) is rather more subjective.
Steve-O
12-02-2009, 07:05 AM
Do you know what really is sad?
It's sad that so may people are prepared to accept the behaviour of a rude, foul mouthed, arrogant, molly coddled egotist like Christian Bale without complaint.
I really can't understand this statement at all? Can you explain it further?
First of all, who exactly do you want people to complain to, and what would you like to see done?
This was a heat of the moment rant, that was recorded in private, and released 6 months later on the internet without Bale's knowledge. Are people not allowed to swear in private now for fear that it will be released into the public domain and offend people who choose to listen to it?
I will say it was harsh, and the guy on the receiving end was hard done by. However, Bale has come out and admitted he was completely out of order, had a meltdown, was filming an intense scene, and admitted the point about not coming back on set if it happened again was simply "hot air". Have you never said anything in a temper that you didn't really mean?
He also apologised to the guy in question, and continued working with him on the remainder of the film. It was a private matter between 2 work collegues, friends even, and it happened to end up online.
If you choose to boycott Terminator: Salvation, and any further Batman films, then that's up to you but I will accept it for what it was - a temper tantrum during a supposedly intense film shoot.
Hibbyradge
12-02-2009, 08:01 AM
Sorry but you sound a bit like Mary Whitehouse with that type of statement. You, and probably countless others, haven't even listened to the broadcast in question and yet here you are sitting in judgement based on what others have said? Why don't you listen to it and decide for yourself? I fail to see how you can 100% KNOW that it's out of order when you haven't even heard it? Given that the vast majority of people who heard it have NOT complained, and therefore potentially think it wasn't out of order, how can you state it as fact that it was out of order?
And before you use the decapitation example as a defence, it's a completely different thing. Unless you are a violent extremist, then I think you would know that seeing someone getting their head cut off is going to be unpleasant.
Comedy (whether or not you find it funny) is rather more subjective.
I read the transcript.
"He f****d your granddaughter.
Hilarious. :bitchy:
You might find bullying, insulting behaviour funny, but I find it contemptible.
A lot of people seem to find happy slapping funny too. I've seen film of elderly people being harassed by teenagers, who were having a right giggle. And I know that people have tortured animals and laughed till they were sick.
Should folk just sit by and do nothing because some purile child thinks it's "comedy gold"?
Or should I voice my opinion when I think the lne has been crossed?
Hibbyradge
12-02-2009, 08:24 AM
I really can't understand this statement at all? Can you explain it further?
First of all, who exactly do you want people to complain to, and what would you like to see done?
This was a heat of the moment rant, that was recorded in private, and released 6 months later on the internet without Bale's knowledge. Are people not allowed to swear in private now for fear that it will be released into the public domain and offend people who choose to listen to it?
I will say it was harsh, and the guy on the receiving end was hard done by. However, Bale has come out and admitted he was completely out of order, had a meltdown, was filming an intense scene, and admitted the point about not coming back on set if it happened again was simply "hot air". Have you never said anything in a temper that you didn't really mean?
He also apologised to the guy in question, and continued working with him on the remainder of the film. It was a private matter between 2 work collegues, friends even, and it happened to end up online.
If you choose to boycott Terminator: Salvation, and any further Batman films, then that's up to you but I will accept it for what it was - a temper tantrum during a supposedly intense film shoot.
A tense film shoot. :faf:
You're ability to forgive, indeed cherish, offensive incidents, whilst mocking those who are offended by them, is remarkable.
His behaviour, was totally unacceptable. I'd be in serious trouble if I spoke to my staff like that, regardless how "tense" the situation was.
He's a spoilt, self centred, prima donna.
And it's sad that you defend him against someone who HAD MADE AN INNOCENT MISTAKE AND HAD SAID SORRY.
You condemn those who complained against the BBC after they said sorry, but you don't condemn Bale for continuing his complaint. In fact, he rejected the apology so he could carry on with his immature tantrum.
If Bale is allowed to reject an apology, why don't you allow BBC viewers the same right?
Double standards indeed.
You must put up with a lot from the people you work for, if you can accept that behaviour, by the way.
Ed De Gramo
12-02-2009, 10:23 PM
About what they see on the TV, hear on the Radio...etc....
Sad *******s the lot of them, honest to god get a grip of yourself and find yourself a life.
Change the station, flick the channel and find something else, don't pick up a bloody phone or write a one hundred paragraph email asking for people to be sacked/some form of action to be taken
I and many others don't want to hear your thoughts on why entertainers should be sacked and how you are deeply traumatised about what you heard.
Argh rant over but this upsurge is concerning.
:top marks:top marks:top marks
Again :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
Steve-O
13-02-2009, 09:22 AM
I read the transcript.
"He f****d your granddaughter.
Hilarious. :bitchy:
You might find bullying, insulting behaviour funny, but I find it contemptible.
A lot of people seem to find happy slapping funny too. I've seen film of elderly people being harassed by teenagers, who were having a right giggle. And I know that people have tortured animals and laughed till they were sick.
Should folk just sit by and do nothing because some purile child thinks it's "comedy gold"?
Or should I voice my opinion when I think the lne has been crossed?
So you've read the transcript? And? Don't you think how things are said can sometimes affect the content of what is said?
You also seem to be putting words in my mouth. Where have I said it was funny? I certainly didn't mention "comedy gold" so not sure what that refers to either. Bullying? Please!
Also, your comparisons, are per usual, are not applicable. Happy slapping - people getting beaten up by thuggish teenagers, hardly the same. Torturing animals? Have a word with yourself if you think that is relevant in any way. Some sick individuals may think that is funny, but the vast, vast majority don't. Assaulting people and killing animals is a tad more serious I would have thought than leaving a voicemail on someone's phone.
As I have already said - more people did NOT complain than did complain. In fact, until the Mail on Sunday ran the story, only 2 people out of 400,000 listening had complained (and that was about Ross swearing).
This article explains things quite well - http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2008/nov/29/charlie-brooker-screen-burn-tv
"Still, this latest email also took umbrage with one other point I actually DID make. I implied that people who retrospectively complain to Ofcom about material they've only read about second-hand are, in essence, a bunch of sanctimonious crybabies indulging in a wretched form of masturbation. In my defence, I only implied this because it's true."
Steve-O
13-02-2009, 09:36 AM
A tense film shoot. :faf:
You're ability to forgive, indeed cherish, offensive incidents, whilst mocking those who are offended by them, is remarkable.
His behaviour, was totally unacceptable. I'd be in serious trouble if I spoke to my staff like that, regardless how "tense" the situation was.
He's a spoilt, self centred, prima donna.
And it's sad that you defend him against someone who HAD MADE AN INNOCENT MISTAKE AND HAD SAID SORRY.
You condemn those who complained against the BBC after they said sorry, but you don't condemn Bale for continuing his complaint. In fact, he rejected the apology so he could carry on with his immature tantrum.
If Bale is allowed to reject an apology, why don't you allow BBC viewers the same right?
Double standards indeed.
You must put up with a lot from the people you work for, if you can accept that behaviour, by the way.
Actually, the word I used was "intense", it's not the same as "tense" you realise? If you don't think shooting a movie with a massive budget and huge reputation could possibly be intense at all, then that's up to you, I'm sure people in the industry might disagree.
Additionally, you infer that this guy was Bale's staff? Erm, Bale is not running the movie, the guy was a colleague, not an employee of Bale.
You must've missed the bit where I told you that Bale had since apologised publicly, and to the person involved. Or perhaps you chose to ignore it?
You must've also missed the part where I said it WAS harsh and the person on the recieving end was hard done by. Or instead you again chose to ignore it, and suggest that I somehow "cherished" it and didn't codemn Bale, even though I did?
Bale 'rejected the apology' in the heat of the moment, he later realised he was being an erse.
I am not defending him against the person, I am defending him against people like yourself who seem to want 'something' (what exactly? You never answered that part either) done about it?
You seem to be contradicting yourself too while accusing me of doing the same thing. You think it's ok for the BBC viewers to reject the BBC's apology and continue complaining, and yet you don't think Bale should be allowed to reject an apology and continue complaining about the guy who ruined a scene in the film?
It's sad that you defend the viewers against the BBC WHO HAD MADE AN INNOCENT MISTAKE AND SAID SORRY.
If BBC viewers are allowed to reject an apology, why don't you allow Christian Bale the same right?
Double standards indeed.
Cameron1875
13-02-2009, 11:24 PM
good point OP. What i don't get is the media wanting jonathan ross sacked. I dont even think what he said was that bad, found it quite funny. Just the way he is an people should just lighten up
Hibbyradge
14-02-2009, 12:20 PM
Actually, the word I used was "intense"
My apologies. I should have typed "Intense film shoot :faf:"
, it's not the same as "tense" you realise?
Why the patronising tone? Unneccesary, petty point scoring.
Additionally, you infer that this guy was Bale's staff?
No, I didn't, but the fact that it was a colleague changes precisely nothing.
I am not defending him against the person, I am defending him against people like yourself who seem to want 'something' (what exactly? You never answered that part either) done about it?
I don't want anything done.
I'm just defending the right of people to be outraged by profanities.
You seem to be contradicting yourself too while accusing me of doing the same thing. You think it's ok for the BBC viewers to reject the BBC's apology and continue complaining, and yet you don't think Bale should be allowed to reject an apology and continue complaining about the guy who ruined a scene in the film?
If BBC viewers are allowed to reject an apology, why don't you allow Christian Bale the same right?
No. That is my point, in reverse.
I think Bale's an erse and his behaviour was appalling. The scene isn't ruined, he'll just have to do it again, but, in fact, Bale has got the right to reject the apology. Everyone has.
You are trying to remove that right from people.
It's sad that you defend the viewers against the BBC WHO HAD MADE AN INNOCENT MISTAKE AND SAID SORRY.
Sometimes saying sorry is not enough for people.
You have no idea as to the context of these people lives. You have no idea as to the emotional baggage they are carrying. You have no idea how many times they have complained about similar things before. You have no idea of the effect the incident had on them or their families. You have no idea why they felt the need to complain.
Yet you glibly write them off and belittle them.
If someone says "****** on the TV at 7.00 am, people have the right to complain, whether or not there has been an apology.
When would an apology not suffice for you? What if it was a porn scene? Or a particularly violent film?
You're entitled to your values and beliefs. Everyone is.
HibbyRadge,
Why do you feel the need to defend the people who want to complain?
Surely by the way in which they seem to live their lives ie: complaiining about every thing that upsets/offends/annoys them they are the last people that need defending.
Is it that you yourself like to have a good moan, like nothing better than to make public your annoyance at something?
Also one thing I would like to pick up on, in the post above you asked Steve-O why he has a patronising tone about him in one of the points he made, yet just above that you made the following comment:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve-O
Actually, the word I used was "intense"
__________________________________________________ _____
HibbyRadge
My apologies. I should have typed "Intense film shoot:faf:
__________________________________________________ ____
Pot, Kettle and Black spring to mind.
Hibbyradge
14-02-2009, 07:36 PM
HibbyRadge,
Why do you feel the need to defend the people who want to complain?
Because you felt the need to attack them.
Why did you feel the need to attack people you have never met and know nothing about?
Surely by the way in which they seem to live their lives ie: complaiining about every thing that upsets/offends/annoys them they are the last people that need defending.
How the ****** do you know how they live their lives? :faf:
Is it that you yourself like to have a good moan, like nothing better than to make public your annoyance at something?
Mibbes aye, mibbes no. If it was, would you have a problem with that? Given that you started this thread to make public your annoyance at something, I guesss you wouldn't.
Also one thing I would like to pick up on, in the post above you asked Steve-O why he has a patronising tone about him in one of the points he made, yet just above that you made the following comment:
Quote:
Originally Posted by [B]Steve-O
Actually, the word I used was "intense"
__________________________________________________ _____
HibbyRadge
My apologies. I should have typed "Intense film shoot:faf:
__________________________________________________ ____
Pot, Kettle and Black spring to mind.
In what sense was my correction patronising? :confused:
Because you felt the need to attack them.
Why did you feel the need to attack people you have never met and know nothing about?
How the ****** do you know how they live their lives? :faf:
Mibbes aye, mibbes no. If it was, would you have a problem with that? Given that you started this thread to make public your annoyance at something, I guesss you wouldn't.
In what sense was my correction patronising? :confused:
Okay, How do you break posts down like that?
Anyway to answer your questions:
Why did you feel the need to attack people you have never met and know nothing about?
I am getting sick of people complaining for the sake of it. The Ross/Brand "scandal" has set a horrible trend in motion.
How the ****** do you know how they live their lives?
I don't, I apolgise for a sweeping comment that I cannot back up with facts, You have to admit though, you must lead a very sheltered/boring life to feel the need to complain about things that are very trivial if you look at the grander scale of things.
I mean I could if I wanted to make a complaint about the language you just used there, as you said yourself in an earlier post, not everyone wants to see/hear bad language, even if you have inserted a few **.:wink:
In what sense was my correction patronising?
Why the need for the smiley laughing at the end, to me it came across as patronising, maybe it was not meant that way but it sure came accross as a smart arse response.
Steve-O
14-02-2009, 08:30 PM
My apologies. I should have typed "Intense film shoot :faf:"
Why the patronising tone? Unneccesary, petty point scoring.
No, I didn't, but the fact that it was a colleague changes precisely nothing.
I don't want anything done.
I'm just defending the right of people to be outraged by profanities.
No. That is my point, in reverse.
I think Bale's an erse and his behaviour was appalling. The scene isn't ruined, he'll just have to do it again, but, in fact, Bale has got the right to reject the apology. Everyone has.
You are trying to remove that right from people.
Sometimes saying sorry is not enough for people.
You have no idea as to the context of these people lives. You have no idea as to the emotional baggage they are carrying. You have no idea how many times they have complained about similar things before. You have no idea of the effect the incident had on them or their families. You have no idea why they felt the need to complain.
Yet you glibly write them off and belittle them.
If someone says "****** on the TV at 7.00 am, people have the right to complain, whether or not there has been an apology.
When would an apology not suffice for you? What if it was a porn scene? Or a particularly violent film?
You're entitled to your values and beliefs. Everyone is.
As GC has also said (so it's not just me), I find your tone to be patronising in almost everyone of these replies. Using the :faf: smiley to write off one of my points is patronising. You also give no reason as to why you disagree with this? It wasn't point scoring, it was just pointing out that you obviously didn't read my post correctly in your haste to laugh at my completely fair point.
Once AGAIN, you ignore that I said Bale was wrong and once again you ignore the fact that he admitted he was pretty much everything you say he was, in the context of that rant at least.
You don't want anything done about Bale, but you find it sad that people accept it? How exactly do you know people 'accepted' it? Who are these people? You obviously want people NOT to accept it, and this suggests that you want some action taken - this is generally how things are shown not to be acceptable, action is taken against people?
You also seem to be getting my points mixed up - this part is all about BALE, but you continue to bring in the BBC issue. I judge every case on it's merits so the BBC thing is irrelevant to me on this specific point.
If 'sorry' is not enough for these people, WHAT is it they want? Please tell me? People sacked for 1 mistake? If that's the case, then I defend my right to belittle them because I don't find that acceptable. I would not disagree with complaints made if I felt they were merited. I am also not saying I think people should be banned from complaining. I'm just saying that I (that's ME) cannot understand sometimes why people feel the need, and what they hope to achieve from their complaints when in cases such as the BBC breakfast thing, the mistake has already been acknowledged.
Hibrandenburg
14-02-2009, 09:17 PM
If some radge gets on my tits, then I'll complain. It's my good right to do so and only by doing so can I let others know what I find acceptable and what I don't.
We all have limits to our humour/taste and by complaining we show each other where those limits are.
If some radge gets on my tits, then I'll complain. It's my good right to do so and only by doing so can I let others know what I find acceptable and what I don't.
We all have limits to our humour/taste and by complaining we show each other where those limits are.
Okay and that is your right, however why feel the need to complain, if I see something on the telly or hear something on the radio that is not for my taste then I just switch stations, never once does it cross my mind to complain.
If it was something extremely serious then I could see the point in it but all these situations that have come around and trivial at best in my opinion.
Just to add, I am not and would never tell someone how to live their life, even with this thread I am only expressing my opinions.
Hibrandenburg
14-02-2009, 09:43 PM
Okay and that is your right, however why feel the need to complain, if I see something on the telly or hear something on the radio that is not for my taste then I just switch stations, never once does it cross my mind to complain.
If it was something extremely serious then I could see the point in it but all these situations that have come around and trivial at best in my opinion.
Just to add, I am not and would never tell someone how to live their life, even with this thread I am only expressing my opinions.
I suppose it's up to the individual. I prefer to let people know what I think they're doing wrong so that they may better themselves if they wish to, others prefer not to say anything and avoid possible uncomfortable situations and confrontation in the future by going elsewhere. If said people don't better themselves afterwards, then you have to assume they don't want to.
Horses for courses.
--------
14-02-2009, 10:35 PM
The fact is that people have the right to complain about things that make them feel bad.
In the case of the BBC, anyone with a valid TV licence is a customer, and dissatisfied customers have the right to complain.
Doesn't mean they're 'sad' people - just means that they're not happy with the service provided to them by their service provider.
Just because you disagree with them doesn't mean they should 'shut up', or go away.
Just because you're NOT offended by what offends them doesn't make them wrong. YOU might be the one who's wrong.
Personally, I reckon if MORE people complained about shoddy service and incompetence, this country would be a better place to live in.
Might keep some of the morons who provide bad meals, over-priced merchandise and rotten services a lot more on their toes.
Why on earth should someone shut up just because GC or anyone else is going to be annoyed? :cool2:
Banks, shops, supermarkets, restaurants, hotels, TV and radio, newspapers, whatever - all fair game if they're failing their customers. Get stuck in, I say. :devil:
The fact is that people have the right to complain about things that make them feel bad.
In the case of the BBC, anyone with a valid TV licence is a customer, and dissatisfied customers have the right to complain.
Doesn't mean they're 'sad' people - just means that they're not happy with the service provided to them by their service provider.
Just because you disagree with them doesn't mean they should 'shut up', or go away.
Just because you're NOT offended by what offends them doesn't make them wrong. YOU might be the one who's wrong.
Personally, I reckon if MORE people complained about shoddy service and incompetence, this country would be a better place to live in.
Might keep some of the morons who provide bad meals, over-priced merchandise and rotten services a lot more on their toes.
Why on earth should someone shut up just because GC or anyone else is going to be annoyed? :cool2:
Banks, shops, supermarkets, restaurants, hotels, TV and radio, newspapers, whatever - all fair game if they're failing their customers. Get stuck in, I say. :devil:
Doddie,
Say you are conducting your service tomorrow morning okay, and you make a slip of the tongue, you deeply offend one of your liteners(I am sorry but I don't know if you call the people who attend your church as a congregation or not)
Now this was a genuine mistake but they take it upon themselves to complain to a more senior member of the church, not just that but they tel their neighbour about this slip up, the neighbour was not in attandance but they are so outraged by what they heard that they are also complaining about you and so it goes on and on and they will not let it rest untill you are dismissed of your position.
Would that be their right, not to just make it known that they were upset by a comment but to demand for your head.
That might be an extreme example but that is what annoys me, the fact that it is not just a complaint that is made but people now believe that they have the right to demand a person's job be out on the line because they did not like what was said.
Steve-O
15-02-2009, 04:12 AM
The fact is that people have the right to complain about things that make them feel bad.
In the case of the BBC, anyone with a valid TV licence is a customer, and dissatisfied customers have the right to complain.
Doesn't mean they're 'sad' people - just means that they're not happy with the service provided to them by their service provider.
Just because you disagree with them doesn't mean they should 'shut up', or go away.
Just because you're NOT offended by what offends them doesn't make them wrong. YOU might be the one who's wrong.
Personally, I reckon if MORE people complained about shoddy service and incompetence, this country would be a better place to live in.
Might keep some of the morons who provide bad meals, over-priced merchandise and rotten services a lot more on their toes.
Why on earth should someone shut up just because GC or anyone else is going to be annoyed? :cool2:
Banks, shops, supermarkets, restaurants, hotels, TV and radio, newspapers, whatever - all fair game if they're failing their customers. Get stuck in, I say. :devil:
I think some are missing the point here. I am not trying to deny someone the right of complaint, I have complained myself, mainly to my bank for various things. This was about them taking money from me, unfairly in my view, hence the complaint.
The point being made is why do people feel the need to complain about things such as the BBC issue where nothing tangible can actually be done about a mistake that's already happened? With my bank complaint, they gave me my money bank which is what I wanted, so that was a complaint worth making IMO and I was satisfied with the outcome. Other than someone getting sacked (and I wouldn't like to think someone would be 'satisfied' with this) and the incident not happening again (impossible to guarantee as human error can never be stopped), I don't know what these people are after?
And the Brand/Ross second hand complainers are even worse IMO - GC's example is a reasonable one I think.
Hibbyradge
15-02-2009, 09:07 AM
As GC has also said (so it's not just me), I find your tone to be patronising in almost everyone of these replies. Using the :faf: smiley to write off one of my points is patronising. You also give no reason as to why you disagree with this?
I find the argument that Bale's outburst was somehow forgivable/understandable because he was involved in a tense/intense/important/complicated scene, laughable.
I wasn't patronising you, but I agree it must have appeared mocking and antagonistic, and I shouldn't have done that. My apologies.
Once AGAIN, you ignore that I said Bale was wrong and once again you ignore the fact that he admitted he was pretty much everything you say he was, in the context of that rant at least.
I agree with you. You agreed with me. I didn't think that aspect needed addressing any further.
You don't want anything done about Bale, but you find it sad that people accept it? How exactly do you know people 'accepted' it? Who are these people? You obviously want people NOT to accept it, and this suggests that you want some action taken - this is generally how things are shown not to be acceptable, action is taken against people?
No, I don't want anything.
I'm just baffled that folk get more aggitated by the complainants, who are vainly trying to uphold decent standards, than the foul mouthed, self important, bully that is Christian Bale, who was bringing them down. I don't really find it sad. I'm quite philosophical about it. It just seemed to be the word of the day.
You also seem to be getting my points mixed up - this part is all about BALE, but you continue to bring in the BBC issue. I judge every case on it's merits so the BBC thing is irrelevant to me on this specific point.
Every chance. It's too early for debating, really.
You're doing your best to come with me though! :greengrin
If 'sorry' is not enough for these people, WHAT is it they want?
I don't know and neither do you.
Maybe we could do a wee list of possibilities. I'l go first.
Maybe they want to let someone know how important the issue is to them.
Maybe they think if they don't complain, it will just happen again.
Maybe they switched the TV off when the swearing happened and phoned immediately.
Maybe they have complained before.
Maybe they want to make sure the incident is brought to the attention of someone senior.
I'm sure there are hundreds of possibilities.
If that's the case, then I defend my right to belittle them because I don't find that acceptable.
You seem more interested in your right to belittle others, than trying to see things from someone elses point of view.
That's not a very positive quality.
I would not disagree with complaints made if I felt they were merited.
And there, you illustrate my point perfectly.
You have appointed yourself as some sort of moral judge and jury, using your values and beliefs as the measure.
Your values and beliefs are not shared by everyone.
.
I'm just saying that I (that's ME) cannot understand sometimes why people feel the need, and what they hope to achieve from their complaints when in cases such as the BBC breakfast thing, the mistake has already been acknowledged.
That's clear from your comments and I'm trying to help with that
However, from where I sit, it seems you are more interested in point scoring and belittling people than trying to understand their motives.
Hibbyradge
15-02-2009, 09:31 AM
Okay, How do you break posts down like that?
I just copy and paste the original quote and delete the parts in between the
devices at the start and end.
[QUOTE=GC;1943928]
I am getting sick of people complaining for the sake of it.
I don't believe anyone complains "for the sake of it". Do you know anyone that does that?
I believe that there is a positive intention behind everything we do.
I don't, I apolgise for a sweeping comment that I cannot back up with facts, You have to admit though, you must lead a very sheltered/boring life to feel the need to complain about things that are very trivial if you look at the grander scale of things.
It's trivial in your world. You are not the sole judge of what's important.
Some folk think that saving animals is so important they would kill humans to do so.
Some people think their right to be naked is so important, they would go to jail to defend it.
Some people think swearing on TV at 7.00 am is so bad, they contact the BBC to complain.
I personally wouldn't do any of those things, but I'm not so arrogant to think my values are better than their's.
I mean I could if I wanted to make a complaint about the language you just used there, as you said yourself in an earlier post, not everyone wants to see/hear bad language, even if you have inserted a few **.:wink:
I'm not quite sure of the point your making, other than to back up my argument.
However, you're right. You could indeed complain and I defend your right to do so.
We get complaints about all sorts, although I don't think we've had one about an asterisked out word yet.
Of course, the context is entirely different. Most people who tune into BBC breakfast expect to see and hear sickly, safe stories and cuddly, middle class humour.
The same can't be said for a football supporters messageboard.
Why the need for the smiley laughing at the end, to me it came across as patronising, maybe it was not meant that way but it sure came accross as a smart arse response.
It wasn't patronising but was ill judged.
In hindsight, it was always going to be perceived as antagonistic and I have apologisd to Steve.
I've reported your post for your use of the word arse, by the way.
Hibbyradge
15-02-2009, 09:39 AM
Doddie,
Say you are conducting your service tomorrow morning okay, and you make a slip of the tongue, you deeply offend one of your liteners(I am sorry but I don't know if you call the people who attend your church as a congregation or not)
Now this was a genuine mistake but they take it upon themselves to complain to a more senior member of the church, not just that but they tel their neighbour about this slip up, the neighbour was not in attandance but they are so outraged by what they heard that they are also complaining about you and so it goes on and on and they will not let it rest untill you are dismissed of your position.
Would that be their right, not to just make it known that they were upset by a comment but to demand for your head.
That might be an extreme example but that is what annoys me, the fact that it is not just a complaint that is made but people now believe that they have the right to demand a person's job be out on the line because they did not like what was said.
If it was a genuine, one-off mistake, a letter to the complainants stating that the matter had been investigated and dealt with internally and they could be assured that it would not happen again.
Any further hounding would be seen as unreasonable.
Ross and Brand said what they said, deliberately, and there was no concerted campaign against the BBC for the Bale mistake.
--------
15-02-2009, 05:24 PM
Doddie,
Say you are conducting your service tomorrow morning okay, and you make a slip of the tongue, you deeply offend one of your liteners(I am sorry but I don't know if you call the people who attend your church as a congregation or not)
Now this was a genuine mistake but they take it upon themselves to complain to a more senior member of the church, not just that but they tel their neighbour about this slip up, the neighbour was not in attandance but they are so outraged by what they heard that they are also complaining about you and so it goes on and on and they will not let it rest untill you are dismissed of your position.
Would that be their right, not to just make it known that they were upset by a comment but to demand for your head.
That might be an extreme example but that is what annoys me, the fact that it is not just a complaint that is made but people now believe that they have the right to demand a person's job be out on the line because they did not like what was said.
First, how can you be so sure that the complainants in the Bale incident were demanding someone lose their job? IMO the real point out the clip that was shown (allegedly inadvertently, but we can't be absolutely sure about that) is that Bale didn't just utter an obscenity, but did so in an extremely aggressive manner. If I had been at the breakfast table with small children whe it happened, and no apology was forthcoming, I would have complained.
I agree that since there was an immediate and uncompromising apology offered, the complaints were perhap misplaced.
I feel you're positing extreme cases to make your point - the situation you suggest arising in a congregation would be very extraordinary indeed. It would also amount to outright bullying, and there are legal remedies for that.
I actually have had a complaint levelled against me, regarding a Remembrance Day service where a guy took deep offence at the fact that I wasn't wearing a poppy. When I explained why - I'd left it on the dressing-table and there were none available in the church - he cooled down a bit, though I still can't wuite work out hy he thought it was so out of order for a Christian to be a pacifist - "Are you a pacifist ior something?" was hi initial complaint. Thankfully, he didn't want me sacked.
I still believe that people have a right to complain in reasonable terms, but I'm also aware that people will disagree over what constitutes reasonable terms - I'd happily have seen Ross and Brand sacked forthwith for the Sachs business, but then I really don't like either of them, and switch channels whenever they appear on my TV.
Flog 'em and brand 'em if you like - I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. :wink:
Steve-O
16-02-2009, 04:16 AM
I find the argument that Bale's outburst was somehow forgivable/understandable because he was involved in a tense/intense/important/complicated scene, laughable.
I wasn't patronising you, but I agree it must have appeared mocking and antagonistic, and I shouldn't have done that. My apologies.
I agree with you. You agreed with me. I didn't think that aspect needed addressing any further.
No, I don't want anything.
I'm just baffled that folk get more aggitated by the complainants, who are vainly trying to uphold decent standards, than the foul mouthed, self important, bully that is Christian Bale, who was bringing them down. I don't really find it sad. I'm quite philosophical about it. It just seemed to be the word of the day.
Every chance. It's too early for debating, really.
You're doing your best to come with me though! :greengrin
I don't know and neither do you.
Maybe we could do a wee list of possibilities. I'l go first.
Maybe they want to let someone know how important the issue is to them.
Maybe they think if they don't complain, it will just happen again.
Maybe they switched the TV off when the swearing happened and phoned immediately.
Maybe they have complained before.
Maybe they want to make sure the incident is brought to the attention of someone senior.
I'm sure there are hundreds of possibilities.
You seem more interested in your right to belittle others, than trying to see things from someone elses point of view.
That's not a very positive quality.
And there, you illustrate my point perfectly.
You have appointed yourself as some sort of moral judge and jury, using your values and beliefs as the measure.
Your values and beliefs are not shared by everyone.
That's clear from your comments and I'm trying to help with that
However, from where I sit, it seems you are more interested in point scoring and belittling people than trying to understand their motives.
First of all, it was Bale himself who gave the reasons (not excuses) for the outburst, perhaps you should listen to the apology and explanation from him rather than me telling you second hand. It's on youtube.
I have not appointed myself judge and jury at all, I am simply stating that I cannot understand why they are complaining, and still I fail to see what is so bad about it all (the BBC thing), despite what morals and values some people may have. It could be said you have appointed yourself judge and jury over the Brand / Ross incident? Every point you have made about that is surely based on YOUR own values and beliefs and yet you say it as if it is undisputable fact? Maybe you don't mean it to come across that way, but again, it does (to me at least).
I also don't see why a letter sent explaining that such a mistake will not happen again would appease the complainants, because the BBC cannot possibly give such a guarantee. I guess they say they can try and make sure that it won't happen again, but anyone with any sense, you would think, would realise that it is not something they would WANT to happen again because it is embarrassing, and leads to complaints! It doesn't take a complaint for something like that to be addressed IMO.
And finally, as for the belittling part, you have missed part of my quote and taken it out of context as a result. Perhaps 'belittling' is the wrong word, but I don't think it's unfair to criticise someone who would like someone else sacked for 1 honest mistake.
Hibbyradge
16-02-2009, 08:38 AM
I have not appointed myself judge and jury at all, I am simply stating that I cannot understand why they are complaining, and still I fail to see what is so bad about it all (the BBC thing), despite what morals and values some people may have. It could be said you have appointed yourself judge and jury over the Brand / Ross incident? Every point you have made about that is surely based on YOUR own values and beliefs and yet you say it as if it is undisputable fact? Maybe you don't mean it to come across that way, but again, it does (to me at least).
There is a difference.
In this case, I am a paying customer. Only I can decide whether I am satisfied with the service I receive. So in that way, yes, I am the judge.
I also don't see why a letter sent explaining that such a mistake will not happen again would appease the complainants, because the BBC cannot possibly give such a guarantee. I guess they say they can try and make sure that it won't happen again, but anyone with any sense, you would think, would realise that it is not something they would WANT to happen again because it is embarrassing, and leads to complaints! It doesn't take a complaint for something like that to be addressed IMO.[/B]
That's all guess work on your part. Clearly, the people who felt the need to complain, thought differently.
And finally, as for the belittling part, you have missed part of my quote and taken it out of context as a result. Perhaps 'belittling' is the wrong word, but I don't think it's unfair to criticise someone who would like someone else sacked for 1 honest mistake.
In general, I'm quite a forgiving person and I wouldn't want someone sacked for a single accident, but I guess it depends on what the "honest mistake"was.
However, how do you know this was an honest mistake?
And how do you know the complainant wanted someone sacked?
Have we exhausted all the arguments yet? :wink:
Sir David Gray
16-02-2009, 04:22 PM
I think if you watch something on TV and you know the likely content of it beforehand, then you shouldn't really complain if you hear something that you object to but you knew you were going to hear that, or something similar before you started watching it.
There are certain channels/shows that I avoid because I know that I won't like what I would hear.
However, I think the BBC is a different kettle of fish. They are publicly funded by the licence fee and so if you're paying your fee for the running of the BBC and they come out with material that you find distasteful, then I think you have the right to complain.
Woody1985
16-02-2009, 04:27 PM
I think if you watch something on TV and you know the likely content of it beforehand, then you shouldn't really complain if you hear something that you object to but you knew you were going to hear that, or something similar before you started watching it.
There are certain channels/shows that I avoid because I know that I won't like what I would hear.
However, I think the BBC is a different kettle of fish. They are publicly funded by the licence fee and so if you're paying your fee for the running of the BBC and they come out with material that you find distasteful, then I think you have the right to complain.
That's a completely separate issue all together.
The aired broadcast was a mistake. Not a pre-recorded program although I agree with you on the point you've made.
I think if you watch something on TV and you know the likely content of it beforehand, then you shouldn't really complain if you hear something that you object to but you knew you were going to hear that, or something similar before you started watching it.
There are certain channels/shows that I avoid because I know that I won't like what I would hear.
However, I think the BBC is a different kettle of fish. They are publicly funded by the licence fee and so if you're paying your fee for the running of the BBC and they come out with material that you find distasteful, then I think you have the right to complain.
Spot on FH, but according to some here, the second hand complainers from the Ross/Brand "scandel" were correct however.
--------
16-02-2009, 06:06 PM
Spot on FH, but according to some here, the second hand complainers from the Ross/Brand "scandel" were correct however.
I pay for my TV licence - a tax to fund the BBC.
So when (for example) I become aware of the Ross/Brand carry-on which has been paid for by public money (my licence fee, and the fees of millions of other licence-holders) I am entitled to complain.
Whether I was listening to the program in particular or not. :grr:
The BBC takes my money - the BBC is responsible to ME, and to every other licence-holder. So I and every other licence-holder are entitled to contact the BBC to express our opinions about what they're doing.
I really don't see the problem.
END OF. (As BM used to say.) :devil:
I pay for my TV licence - a tax to fund the BBC.
So when (for example) I become aware of the Ross/Brand carry-on which has been paid for by public money (my licence fee, and the fees of millions of other licence-holders) I am entitled to complain.
Whether I was listening to the program in particular or not. :grr:
The BBC takes my money - the BBC is responsible to ME, and to every other licence-holder. So I and every other licence-holder are entitled to contact the BBC to express our opinions about what they're doing.
I really don't see the problem.
END OF. (As BM used to say.) :devil:
You know something Doddie, That's your opinion and this is a counrty of free speach.
I respect that and I agree completely with you that this is END OF.
The debate has run it's course I think, I just hope you can see my way of thinking as I can see yours.
Hibbyradge
16-02-2009, 10:17 PM
Spot on FH, but according to some here, the second hand complainers from the Ross/Brand "scandel" were correct however.
What Doddie said. :agree:
What Doddie said. :agree:
See post above.
Steve-O
17-02-2009, 05:58 AM
There is a difference.
In this case, I am a paying customer. Only I can decide whether I am satisfied with the service I receive. So in that way, yes, I am the judge.
That's all guess work on your part. Clearly, the people who felt the need to complain, thought differently.
In general, I'm quite a forgiving person and I wouldn't want someone sacked for a single accident, but I guess it depends on what the "honest mistake"was.
However, how do you know this was an honest mistake?
And how do you know the complainant wanted someone sacked?
Have we exhausted all the arguments yet? :wink:
Well, if you think the BBC made the mistake deliberately, and would not be bothered about it and not care if it happened again, then that's up to you. I tend to think that they would take the exact opposite view given that complaints are not something they seek, particularly in recent times.
I am a paying customer at Hibs and I judge that Mixu should go as I am not satisfied with the service he's providing - you don't agree with that point of view either though :wink:
And before you hit me with being contradictory about not wanting people sacked - I am judging Mixu over a long period of time, and what I consider a series of mistakes, not just one, or even two, honest ones...:greengrin
Hibbyradge
17-02-2009, 07:48 AM
Well, if you think the BBC made the mistake deliberately, and would not be bothered about it and not care if it happened again, then that's up to you. I tend to think that they would take the exact opposite view given that complaints are not something they seek, particularly in recent times.
I have no idea what happened. Neither do you, but you've been arguing that it was an honest mistake.
Maybe it was a naughty prankster. Maybe it was someone seeking revenge on behalf the hilarious comedy duo that is Ross and Bland.
Maybe it was someone who wanted to start a long running argument on a football messageboard.
The OP, backed up by you, have made negative assumptions about the complainants, and neutral ones about the editor who let the swearwords through.
I'm pointing out that the reverse could be the case.
I am a paying customer at Hibs and I judge that Mixu should go as I am not satisfied with the service he's providing - you don't agree with that point of view either though
And before you hit me with being contradictory about not wanting people sacked - I am judging Mixu over a long period of time, and what I consider a series of mistakes, not just one, or even two, honest ones...
Again, your beliefs and values. You have decided the time is right.
Exactly the same as the folk who complained.
Although you do want Mixu sacked. You don't know what the BBC complainers want.
Matthew 7:
Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
(Has there been an ecclesiatical influence on this thread? :wink:)
Steve-O
17-02-2009, 08:14 AM
The end.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.