Political Correctnes Gone Mad

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by Johnny_Norfolk, Aug 21, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. LONDON (AFP) - Smoking scenes in "Tom and Jerry" cartoons are now banned in Britain, following a viewer's complaint to the government agency that polices the airwaves.
    In one episode of the classic US cartoon series, Tom is seen smoking a roll-up cigarette in a bid to impress a female cat. In another, Tom's opponent in a tennis match was seen smoking a large cigar. Following an investigation prompted by the anonymous viewer's complaint, regulator Ofcom said Monday that children's TV channel Boomerang has agreed to edit out scenes deemed to glamorise or condone smoking. "We note that, in 'Tom and Jerry', smoking usually appears in a stylised manner and is frequently not condoned," said Ofcom, recalling how the cartoons were made in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s when smoking was not so controversial. "However, while we appreciate the historic integrity of the animation, the level of editorial justification required for the inclusion of smoking in such cartoons is necessarily high."

    What on earth has happened to our country?
  2. I think we stopped telling kids that smoking is good for them.

    Edit...I see your point Johnny, but in this case I think they were right.
  3. Happened here too. Looney Toons, Tom and Jerry, all the classics are off the air. It truly is the end of the world.
  4. Wouldn't it be a better idea to add in scenes of him dying from lung cancer? That way everybody wins, and the kids learn an important lesson: do whatever it takes to impress the ladies.
  5. Utter CNUTS!!!

    I am prepared to bet that not one single, solitary child has taken up smoking because of the portrayal of cigarettes and cigars in Tom and Jerry Cartoons. Bloody, spineless, pointless, liberal, revisionist fcuking winkers.

    They'll be banning anvils next.
  6. Precisely the same thing happened with the 1960's puppet series by Gerry Anderson: Thunderbirds" in which Lady Penelope was regularly seen with a cigarette from a long pink cigarette holder. Such episodes have been banned completely.

    Another series from the early 1970s, Department 'S' and it's 'spin-off' Jason King received the same treatment.

    In the 1960 and 1970s smoking was considered normal, and it would seem that the TV genre which reflected that reality has been quietly airbrushed out of history!

    All of this is, of course, social engineering and based upon the premise that the public have an infantile mind and unable to make choices for themselves. More pointedly, is the belief in the power of television to influence the mind.

    We have now been subjected to the politically correct version of reality rather than a reflection of it in many of our TV programmes, particularly in the area of ethnic diversity. We will have the obligatory afro-caribbean Police hero, the obligatory Investigative hero from the Indian sub-continent and in television programmes such as 'The Bill' notice how many, but not all victims are black or Indian, while the villains are all white yobs or organised racist thugs!

    It is subtle brainwashing portraying society as the social engineers think we are or would like us to become rather than portraying it for what it actually is!
  7. Erm, sorry to sound geeky, but there is a huge amount of published research that suggests otherwise.
  8. The fact that we've research on this stupid matter proves to me that there are too many stupid people in stupid jobs doing stupid research.

    The censors are picking on the wrong subjects here. Have you seen the oscenities on Saturday morning TV? Makes Tom & Jerry seem like innocent kids cartoons! :p
  9. I blame watching Tom and Jerry for my obsession with cheese.

    Do I qualify for compensation?
  10. ... and because of T&J I've a 'thing' for fat women with no upper body's....
  11. I habitually buy things from companies called ACME...I just can't think why! Meep-meep...zwoosh!
  12. Damn right, can parents not be responsible enough to explain to their child what is right and wrong?
  13. Political Correctness has only 'gone mad' because the sane have allowed the insane to determine what is or is not 'correct' and in accepting the insane outcome they have allowed themselves by acquiesence to it, to become imprisoned by it!

    I visit a great deal of anti-political correctness sites, and there are a great many out there, and what comes through time and time again, particularly in the public sector, from Council Office workers, nurses and a whole host of others is that [X] cannot be said or done because it 'might' offend group [Y]. My answer is and will remain this:


    ARTICLE 10

    1, Everyone has the right to feedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions ad to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent states from requreing the licencing of broadcasting, television or cenema enterprises.

    [Article 10 is qualified by Article 10(2]

    2, The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, ay be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for theprevention of disorder or crime, for theprotection of health or morals, for the protection or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and inpartiality of the judiciary.

    In other words, freedom of expression under article 10(1) is qualified under article 10(2) only insofar as they are prescribed by law.


    Article 10 is one of those convention rights incorporated into English law under Section 1(1)(a) Human Rights Act 1998.

    Now lets have a look what the Human Rights Act has to say about acts of public authorities:

    6. Acts of public authorities

    (1), It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a convention right.

    [there are two exceptions to this]

    (2), Subsection (1) does not apply to an act if:

    (a), as a result of one or more provisions of primary legislation [ie, an Act of Parliament] the authority could not have acted differently or,

    (b), in the case of one or more provision of, or made under primary legislation [ie, an Act of Parliament or a Statutory Instrument made by a minister under an Act and laid before Parliament] which cannot be read or given effect in a way which is compatible with Convention Rights, the authority was acting so as to give effect to or enforce those provisions.

    So, who is a 'public authority'? This is given at section 6(3):

    (3) In this section 'public authority' includes

    (a), a court or tribunal, and

    (b), any person certain whose functions are functions of a public nature, but does not include either House of Parliament or a person exercising functions in connection with proceedings in Parliament.

    So where is all of this going and what does it mean?

    OK you have been very patient with me so far but where you might ask is all of this going and what does it mean?

    Well, the PC Brigade always justify their tyranny on the basis that it either causes offence, or usually, it may cause offence!

    Clearly some words and actions do cause offence and where applicable Parliament properly legislates to ameliorate it. We can thing of several examples, one of which is the Public Order Act 1986 (as amended) where words or behaviour may cause a disturbance. However, the point is, that freedom of expression under article 10(1), is qualified under article 10(2) to that which is prescribed by law - nothing wrong here.

    However, outside of either an Act of Parliament, or an order a Minister is allowed to make under it, or those powers which an authority actually has which allows it to enact bye-laws which must fall strictly within the powers which a statute provides for and not beyond it, where in anything you have so far seen is causing offence prohibited by law? In fact the freedom to cause offence is expressly protected in our own law under section 6 of the Human Rights Act isnt it?

    I other words, if you are sat in an office and you are working in an 'authority' and some supercilious 'tw*t' sends around a memorandum prohibiting a word or a phrase or a course of action on the grounds that it may cause offence, you can properly respond by telling him that should he try to enforce such a rule or prohibit a course of conduct upon those grounds as a matter of 'policy' rather than law, then he is himself breaking the law and breaches section 6 Human Rights Act which incorporates article 10 of the Covention for which the authority employing him will be held vicariously liable entitling you to bring proceedings against it under section 7(1) of the 1998 Act claiming the remedies available under section 8.

    If he seeks to rely upon a provision within a contact of employment entitling to take such an action, you can tell him it is unenforceable, if he points to some 'guideline', 'code of practice' 'best practice' and so on, you can tell him that it is the law that is authoritive and none of that upon which he seeks to rely.

    R v Somerset CC, ex p Fewings [1995] 1 All ER 513 stands as authority for the contention that a public authority is bound to act within the powers conferred upon it by statute, it does not have the power to act as a private person has the freedom to act, ie, that something seems like a good idea atthe time. Remember too, that under s6(3)(a) of the 1998 Act a court or tribunal (and that means an industrial tribunal) is bound falls within the Act.

    In short, you can give short shrift very quickly to some of the lunatice ideas about political correctness to the politically correct by relying on article 10 and section 6 to the next person who seeks to admonish you for using the term: blackboard' who tells you small child he cannot sing 'Baa black sheep' or tells you, you cannot put up a christmas tree or even call it a christmas tree, and so on ad infinitum for even though you may cause offence, the person admonishing you is breaking the law, and in any event, 'may' is not good enough, offence has to be shown to have been caused as a demonstrable fact, not some fanciful fear and even if offence is caused then unless the law expressly prohibits it, then you can tell the PC fruitcake to 'pick his bloody window'.

    Remember that when next time you are told you cannot take a picture of your child on sports day! Remember it when you take a picture of your son or daughter at the school play and some teacher demands your film because it is against school 'policy'.

    Victims of political correctness are those that give up their rights easily or do not know they have them!

    If the politically correct seek to enforce their morality, tell them you will enforce the law that protects your right to be as offensive as you want to be as long as you do not break the law that operates to protect it!

    F**k them off at the hight port!

    Rant over.

    Regards and best wishes
  14. Iolis, as always you are full of wisdom regardless of your avatar. You seem never to be wrong. But I'm far to kernakered to read all that at 0225. Maybe tomorrow. Do you have an edited version, say a couple of lines?
  15. That actually has happened in the US. Speedy Gonzalez was also banned for being a rascist depiction of Mexicans. Porky pig was offensive to fat people. Roadrunner and Coyote, Tom and Jerry, Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fud, and all the other classic slapstic heroes were taken off the air for violence. Nothing is left anymore but Blue's Clues :roll: The children of today are growing up with shows are full of slow-speaking animals in bland environments telling them "the sky is blue" and that "water is wet". It will spawn a generation of dimwits.