Antonin Scalia dead

[Walt Zingmatilder]

She formed the National Viewers and Listeners Association, a body explicitly intended to pressurise the government into ensuring that broadcasting was carried out on their own timid five-year-old terms.

Hush, you'll invoke memories of Jackbooted NVLA members (The dreaded Mumswaffe) throwing pornographers through the windows of Rentaset.

[ProfessorDavey]

Take Mary Whitehouse. For expressing a view she is vilified by antitheists.

Mary Whitehouse was perfectly entitled to express a view - and indeed to expect her views to be challenged.

That wasn't why she was vilified - it was that she tried to impose her views on everyone, regardless of their views, by trying to get things banned. That's different to merely expressing a view. Can't you understand that Vlad.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Mary Whitehouse was perfectly entitled to express a view - and indeed to expect her views to be challenged.

That wasn't why she was vilified - it was that she tried to impose her views on everyone, regardless of their views, by trying to get things banned. That's different to merely expressing a view. Can't you understand that Vlad.

Yes but it's the phrase ''trying to impose her views''. Your treatment of it completely distorts the reality of the power relationships which existed......and it was in the hands of Carleton-Greene....particularly in a way that would be unheard of today.

Once again, hysterical hyperbole on your parts.

[Shaker]

Yes but it's the phrase trying to impose her views.

Why is that such a stumbling block? That's precisely what she sought to do, and indeed dedicated her life to doing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why is that such a stumbling block? That's precisely what she sought to do, and indeed dedicated her life to doing.

Again..... how could she impose her views having no actual power? Carleton Greene had the power and now we have around 110 channels pumping out Bazalgette.

Where do you get this notion that Whitehouse was some kind of Genghis Khan?

[Shaker]

Again..... how could she impose her views having no actual power?

She did have influence, though, which came about through endlessly badgering the government to do her bidding in terms of broadcasting and film certification, and didn't mind troubling the courts whenever something cropped up that she didn't like (and she didn't like much). She was the last person (and will probably be the last in the final, ultimate sense) to launch a private prosecution for blasphemy because she didn't like a bad poem in a magazine.

Carleton Greene had the power and now we have around 110 channels pumping out Bazalgette.

Where do you get this notion that Whitehouse was some kind of Genghis Khan?

She would have been more etertaining if she had been. In reality she was a dreary, narrow-minded prude who thought she had the right to tell ther people what to watch, read and listen to.

[ProfessorDavey]

Again..... how could she impose her views having no actual power?

She wanted things banned and lobbied to try to ensure this happened.

So she wanted to impose her views on everyone, ensuring that no-one could watch things she didn't approve of. And she tried to make that happen. That's entirely different to those who opposed her who didn't want to impose their views on anyone - if you wanted to watch you could (as it wasn't banned) if you didn't want to watch, no one made you and of course you had an off switch.

[Sassy]

Only hypocrites respect in death somebody they despised in life.

Were you sad when Hitler died?

There was a great Irving Berlin number that looked forward to his death.

http://lyricsplayground.com/alpha/songs/w/whenthatmanisdeadandgone.shtml

I guess you have double standards... by all means discuss what he did wrong. But by no means diss him when dead in public
where is family could read simply by google search of his name.

There is no hypocrisy in respect for his family since this is what I am referring to. In spite of anything he might have done at least respect their grief. Tell me what he did in life to deserve such angst from you and others. I had never heard of him till today. But pray God it isn't his decisions did not agree with abortion bill or gay marriage. Because that would show how bias and how atheists believe only they are right about such matters... Atheists are against abortion and gay marriage too.
Right or wrong does not come into choices. Nor does it make it right for you to abuse him in death.

So tell me what evils he committed and how he was in such a high place of power for doing so.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

She did have influence, though, which came about through endlessly badgering the government to do her bidding in terms of broadcasting and film certification, and didn't mind troubling the courts whenever something cropped up that she didn't like (and she didn't like much).

And you would withdraw that facility for somebody who wasn't the Director General of the BBC?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

She would have been more etertaining if she had been. In reality she was a dreary, narrow-minded prude who thought she had the right to tell ther people what to watch, read and listen to.

No evidence of that against her thinking she had the right to try and influence what was watched. Carleton Greene had far more of the right the right to tell people what to watch since he commanded two thirds of what was offered to watch and 100 percent minus Radio Luxemburg and the pirates of what was listened to.

She was no press baron.

How far can the listener influence what is watched now rather than the other way round.

All radio is the same and TV is almost exclusively bazalgette.

[ProfessorDavey]

Lets not forget that her opposition wasn't just in areas of sex etc.

This was the woman who complained about Richard Dimbleby's ground breaking coverage of the liberation of the Belsen concentration camp being repeated. Remember this was reporting real atrocities and her view was that is somehow might upset someone's tea time. She described it as "filth", being "bound to shock and offend", "an awful intrusion" and "very off-putting".

Her view was that we shouldn't know the details, we should brush the horror under the carpet because it might be 'off putting' - a truly atrocious woman in so many respects.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Lets not forget that her opposition wasn't just in areas of sex etc.

This was the woman who complained about Richard Dimbleby's ground breaking coverage of the liberation of the Belsen concentration camp being repeated. Remember this was reporting real atrocities and her view was that is somehow might upset someone's tea time. She described it as "filth", being "bound to shock and offend", "an awful intrusion" and "very off-putting".

Her view was that we shouldn't know the details, we should brush the horror under the carpet because it might be 'off putting' - a truly atrocious woman in so many respects.

Yes and I disagree with that but I do not vilify her for holding contrary views.
Had she attempted a coup to take over Carleton Greene by assassination it might be a different story. Had she caused a civil war where the country was split between those that wanted to watch Dennis Potter's latest filthfest and that nice Billy Cottons Band show..... it might be a different.
Don't forget, Carleton Greene presided over The Black and White Minstrel show....is he thus vilified?....Is he f**K, as Kenneth Tynan would have put it.

[Leonard James]

I guess you have double standards... by all means discuss what he did wrong. But by no means diss him when dead in public
where is family could read simply by google search of his name.

Don't be stupid! What on earth is the difference between condemning his actions during his life and doing so after his death? To make such a difference would be the height of hypocrisy.

There is no hypocrisy in respect for his family since this is what I am referring to. In spite of anything he might have done at least respect their grief.

I have said nothing about his family, so don't go creating straw men just to suit yourself (as usual).

Tell me what he did in life to deserve such angst from you and others. I had never heard of him till today. But pray God it isn't his decisions did not agree with abortion bill or gay marriage. Because that would show how bias and how atheists believe only they are right about such matters... Atheists are against abortion and gay marriage too.
Right or wrong does not come into choices. Nor does it make it right for you to abuse him in death.

So tell me what evils he committed and how he was in such a high place of power for doing so.

Look it up for yourself, I am not going to waste my time trying to educate you. Partly because I have better things to do, but mainly because any attempt to do so will meet with a brick wall of incomprehension.

[Shaker]

Yes and I disagree with that but I do not vilify her for holding contrary views.

Nor do I. I vilify her for proclaiming herself the judge of taste and decency for others and trying to interfere in the choices of those others.

Had she attempted a coup to take over Carleton Greene by assassination it might be a different story. Had she caused a civil war where the country was split between those that wanted to watch Dennis Potter's latest filthfest and that nice Billy Cottons Band show..... it might be a different.

And you accuse others of hysterical hyperbole It wasn't a civil war but I'd say the country was split between those who thought that Mary Whitehouse and those like her should decide what others - grown adults at that - can watch, read and listen to, and those who thought that that was a decision best left to themselves.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nor do I. I vilify her for proclaiming herself the judge of taste and decency for others and trying to interfere in the choices of those others.And you accuse others of hysterical hyperbole It wasn't a civil war but I'd say the country was split between those who thought that Mary Whitehouse and those like her should decide what others - grown adults at that - can watch, read and listen to, and those who thought that that was a decision best left to themselves.

Where was the proclamation?

I'm afraid for you guys opposition is an affront.
And you are completely mistaken about the status of tv and radio at the time. There were 3 channels and radio accessible by everyone not just grown adults.

[Shaker]

Where was the proclamation?

In everything she said, did and tried to do from the formation of the NVLA (in 1964, I think) onwards.

I'm afraid for you guys opposition is an affront.

No. For this guy, anybody telling another grown-up what they're supposed to watch, read and listen to - or not - is an affront.

And you are completely mistaken about the status of tv and radio at the time. There were 3 channels and radio accessible by everyone not just grown adults.

At what time?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In everything she said, did and tried to do from the formation of the NVLA (in 1964, I think) onwards.No. For this guy, anybody telling another grown-up what they're supposed to watch, read and listen to - or not - is an affront.At what time?

In the sixties.
There is no evidence to show that Whitehouse wasn't in fact largely pissing in the wind or that at anytime she could enforce her views on the public or that she was deluded enough to think she would ever be in that position.

[Shaker]

In the sixties.
There is no evidence to show that Whitehouse wasn't in fact largely pissing in the wind or that at anytime she could enforce her views on the public or that she was deluded enough to think she would ever be in that position.

Then what do you think she thought she was doing?

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes and I disagree with that but I do not vilify her for holding contrary views.

Are you deliberately misunderstanding my point.

I was not vilifying her for personally finding Dimbleby's coverage distasteful (albeit I find that a rather odd response as this was surely the point of the coverage, to generate horror).

No the reasons why I find her approach reprehensible was that she wanted to prevent everyone and anyone from seeing this coverage, regardless of their response. She was trying to impose her own personal (and very extreme even in those days) views of what was right and proper on everyone in the UK.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Then what do you think she thought she was doing?

Standing for what she believed using democratic and lawful ways to influence those who had bags more power than she ever had at the cost of being vilified on one hand or made a figure of fun on the other. Her mission was to try and maintain Reithian standards in what she saw as a public place...after all, even today I believe shagging on the pavement outside Debenham's or beating somebody to a pulp is not permitted.

[Shaker]

Standing for what she believed using democratic and lawful ways to influence those who had bags more power than she ever had at the cost of being vilified on one hand or made a figure of fun on the other. Her mission was to try and maintain Reithian standards in what she saw as a public place...

... by trying to bring pressure to bear on broadcasters to broadcast only what she approved of.

after all, even today I believe shagging on the pavement outside Debenham's or beating somebody to a pulp is not permitted.

Showing somebody being beaten to a pulp in a fictional context is not an issue.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Showing somebody being beaten to a pulp in a fictional context is not an issue.

?

[Shaker]

?

You said beating somebody to a pulp isn't permitted. Correct: it isn't. A fictional depiction, by actors, of somebody beating somebody to a pulp is in countless films that Whitehouse and her ilk wanted other people not to be able to see.

[Shaker]

I was not vilifying her for personally finding Dimbleby's coverage distasteful (albeit I find that a rather odd response as this was surely the point of the coverage, to generate horror).

No the reasons why I find her approach reprehensible was that she wanted to prevent everyone and anyone from seeing this coverage, regardless of their response. She was trying to impose her own personal (and very extreme even in those days) views of what was right and proper on everyone in the UK.

What makes this example so particularly odious is that this wasn't even about a fictional film created for the purpose of pure entertainment; footage of the liberation of the death camps was and remains an immensely valuable historical document.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You said beating somebody to a pulp isn't permitted. Correct: it isn't. A fictional depiction, by actors, of somebody beating somebody to a pulp is in countless films that Whitehouse and her ilk wanted other people not to be able to see.

Yes but also what she considered rightly or wrongly as the impressionable and at the end of the day so what? She must have known that against the BBC, a progressive government, financial and consumer interest she would have limited success but never gave up trying to influence.

I feel you are trying to goad me into some kind of debate on whether fictional representations have any effect on people. As I recall Whitehouse frequently criticised Dr Who for violence and Tom and Jerry..............It's easy to agree that that is going toward daft as a brush.....but what about realistic portrayals...what about learning by observation.

Your alternative would have us left to sexism (Mainly for Men) and then the clean up would then have been led by Auntie Germaine.........How would that have panned out I wonder.