The question is; "When did we start pandering to namby pamby arseholes?"
The reason I ask is that I stumbled across this story in the online edition of the Guardian newspaper today...
A TV ad for a shoot-em-up video game has been banned for "encouraging and condoning violence".
The ad for the Stranglehold game, which is rated 18+, had been cleared for broadcast after 7.30pm by Clearcast, the former Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre.
The ad showed a prolonged shoot-out between four men and the voiceover stated: "Honour is his code. Vengeance is his mission. Violence is his only option."
The ad attracted two complaints to the Advertising Standards Authority, one from the parent of a three-year-old boy who viewed it before the 9pm watershed. The other viewer complained that the ad glorified violence and gun crime.
The producer of the ad, the Picture Production Company, argued that it had edited the footage to ensure bullets were fired into mid-air and did not result in anyone being shot.
The agency said it was clear to viewers that the footage was animated gameplay and not real-life violence.
Clearcast said it approved the ad despite the violent content because the violence was stylised, unrealistic and had a fantasy quality.
Bearing in mind the lack of contact violence and absence of blood and gore, the organisation believed it was suitable for older children and could be shown after 7.30pm.
However, the ASA noted that the shooting was almost continuous and the violence, although computer-generated, appeared realistic.
The watchdog also objected to the voiceover, which it said suggested that it was honourable to seek revenge, and could therefore be seen as encouraging and condoning violence.
The ad breached the ASA's code on the clauses covering violence and cruelty as well as health and safety. The ASA ruled that the ad must be withdrawn entirely.
Last year the ASA banned an Internet ad for PlayStation 3 featuring a character armed with a knife and a gun and an ad for Electronic Arts computer game Burnout Dominator, which carried the slogan "inner peace through outer violence" and appeared on posters throughout the London Underground.
Now the thing that strikes me as being a bit reactionary is the paragraph... "The ad attracted two complaints to the Advertising Standards Authority, one from the parent of a three-year-old boy who viewed it before the 9pm watershed. The other viewer complained that the ad glorified violence and gun crime."
What I'd like to know is what the fuck is a three year old doing up after 7.30? (This we know to be a fact as the story also states... "The ad for the Stranglehold game, which is rated 18+, had been cleared for broadcast after 7.30pm by Clearcast, the former Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre." Surely junior should be in the land of nod at that time and not sitting watching Satan's squawkbox.
More to the point what kind of moron is willing to complain an ad "Glorified violence and gun crime" but, and I'm guessing here, is more than likely the type to watch footage of British and American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan shooting people on the evening news and think that that doesn't glorify violence and gun crime.
A fucking idiot that's who.
And to point out how this country has now descended into farce on a grand scale when it comes to pandering to morons I'd like to state that there are roughly 60 MILLION people in the UK.
This would mean that TWO people represents 0.0000033333333333333333 of the population.
That's not even a whole person!
5 comments:
As a person who not only had the misfortune of being in the State where and when it happened but also a person intimately related to the Columbine Shootings that are still such a huge news concern I'd like to say something here that I think is worth hearing...
Other people might hold the shooters responsible but the shooters held everyone else responsible.
Heartfelt sobs went up for the two boys involved because we let them down, we allowed them to buy guns, we showed them violent tv, we let them play violent games, we let them get onto the internet and write about what they wanted to do and no one knew. We ignored the signs we didn't... we should have... we could have...
Each of the statements above also came with a pointed finger... you should have... you didn't... you did this thing...
The truth?
Violence begets violence. Anger begets anger. Hatred begets hatred. And people made up all of those terms and thier associated activities.
We are singularly the only creatures on the planet who make sport and requirement of killing on the scale that we do.
I've said this before and you didn't hear me. Please... hear me... I'm not suggesting we go backwards... only that we LOOK backwards... there was a time not so distant past when a man was the culmination of his life, good bad and indifferent. He worked, he ate, slept and did a multitude of other things. He was responsible for his actions, under penalty of death at times.
What he was not was unusually cruel or violent in his means, only by modern standards created by the mamby pamby and frightened of exposure public. Even soldiers were not always violent and they did not come home, murder their children and expect their Generals to take the blame for exposing them to violence. We were, truthfully, better off before we bought into the idea that everything that happens to us is someone else's fault, someone else's responsiblity...
Ross, I'm sorry... this is a lesson your country has learnt fast and well from mine.
If America owes anyone an apology for anything it is this... not Starbucks or Mc Donalds or a million other commercial ideals.
And I'm man enough to say it (even without the bollocks or body hair)...
I'm sincerely sorry that we've managed to sell everyone in the Western World the idea that everything is someone else's fault...
I'm even sorrier that you dumb suckers bought it lock stock and two smoking barrels.
Ruth (Or twelve squared)
You're reading things into this post that are not implied.
You state "As a person who not only had the misfortune of being in the State where and when it happened but also a person intimately related to the Columbine Shootings that are still such a huge news concern I'd like to say something here that I think is worth hearing...
Other people might hold the shooters responsible but the shooters held everyone else responsible.
Heartfelt sobs went up for the two boys involved because we let them down, we allowed them to buy guns, we showed them violent tv, we let them play violent games, we let them get onto the internet and write about what they wanted to do and no one knew. We ignored the signs we didn't... we should have... we could have..."
This post has nothing whatsoever to do with the Columbine shooting. Or any other violent attack on anyone anywhere in the world.
The point I was trying to make was that less than half of a whole person (statistically) in a population of 60 million complained about an advertisement for a game that was (initially) deemed to be broadcastable after the hours of 7.30pm.
By these standards would it be acceptable for me to complain to the TV watchdogs that I find the showing of people being blown up or shot on the news channels as glorifying violence and demand that it be removed from our screens?
Yes, it would.
Would the news be removed from the TV?
No it wouldn't.
Why? Because I would be shouted down by people claiming I was an idiot.
The double standard is the thing I am trying to highlight. In one case it is fine and dandy to show footage of real people being killed left right and centre but whatever you do don't let the kids (who should be in their beds when the ad was originally deemed to be showable after 7:30 pm) see images of a game where pixelated "humans" are shot[1] because little Johnny may grow up to be a mass murderer.
The pandering to those not sensible enough to see the stupidity in making silly claims like this is what has got us to the point in time where rational thinking is ignored.
In my opinion the two people who sent in complaints should have been sent letters (respectively) informing them that they were fucking idiots, that they should be getting their kids to bed at a reasonable time and should stop interfering in other peoples lives because they are dolts.
As a matter of fact I'd like to complain about these two people in a population of SIXTY MILLION being able to have an advert removed from the airwaves because of their insane sensibilities. Where do I send my letter? To which Government dept do I complain? Can I have them removed from ever watching TV?
No.
And why not?
Because that's just stupid.
[1]"The producer of the ad, the Picture Production Company, argued that it had edited the footage to ensure bullets were fired into mid-air and did not result in anyone being shot." (Copied verbatim from original article. my highliting not withstanding.)
[And as a small post script to this reply to your statement about the kids at Columbine buying guns and running amock... If you do not want kids to be able to get a hold of guns STOP FUCKING SELLING THEM IN WALMART TO INBRED HILLBILLIES WHO DON'T HAVE THE COMMON SENSE TO BE ABLE TO KEEP THEM IN A RESPONSIBLE MANNER.
And please don't get me started on the "Constitutional right to carry arms." Sure, it's your right to have guns but this doesn't mean you MUST have them.
And if you want guns to hunt deer or any other animal then restrict the guns you can buy to hunting rifles that you can only purchase if you are a member of a shooting club where you have to undergo a strictly enforced security and background check to ensure you aren't the "Kill em all" variety nutjob and stop the general populace from being able to get their hands on SEMI AUTOMATIC MACHINE GUNS that are easily converted into FULLY AUTOMATIC MACHINE GUNS.
What kind of deer is running around in the forests that you need a semi automatic to kill the thing? Giant Moose with kevlar hides? No. Use some fucking sense will ya. It's a much needed thing.]
Here Endeth the lesson.
Nuff sed -
Salagatle!
Max,
That's not you agreeing with me is it? Holy fuck man, you must be getting old...
I take it this qulifies as "Something worth reading" then?
I took it one step farther, aparently a leap that wasn't easily followed... and too much said... :)
I tend to do that.
Nice reminder.
Post a Comment