TV Home Forum

Jerry Springer - The Musical

BBC2 Saturday 10pm (January 2005)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
PE
Pete Founding member
pthurst posted:
I don't think it's relevant whether the complaints were lodged prior to, or after Xmission. What is of importance here is the actual content.


oh I think it's relevent when the complains are wrong. For example the pathetic MediaWatch 4000 swearwords complains should all be discounted and, as far as I'm concerned, so should the blasphemy complaints as I feel the comments about blasphemy were innaccurate (as I've outlined on this blog)
PT
pthurst Founding member
Hymagumba posted:
pthurst posted:
I don't think it's relevant whether the complaints were lodged prior to, or after Xmission. What is of importance here is the actual content.


oh I think it's relevent when the complains are wrong. For example the pathetic MediaWatch 4000 swearwords complains should all be discounted and, as far as I'm concerned, so should the blasphemy complaints as I feel the comments about blasphemy were innaccurate (as I've outlined on this blog)


I'm not so sure. I wont be counting the number of swearwords, but its not difficult to see why the theological content has offended many.

At one point Christ is described as "a bit gay". This comment about Jesus' sexuality would cause offense to many and its not hard to see why either given the Church's difficulty with the whole issue of homosexuality.

Religion is incredibly personal and any attack (or perceived attack) on established belief tends to feel equally as personal. These sensitivities are not new and are often accounted for, however Christianity is often attacked in this way with little regard for those who choose to follow Christ which is just as valid a choice as someone like yourself who chooses not to believe in God whatsoever.
MA
marksi
pthurst posted:
Hymagumba posted:
pthurst posted:
I don't think it's relevant whether the complaints were lodged prior to, or after Xmission. What is of importance here is the actual content.


oh I think it's relevent when the complains are wrong. For example the pathetic MediaWatch 4000 swearwords complains should all be discounted and, as far as I'm concerned, so should the blasphemy complaints as I feel the comments about blasphemy were innaccurate (as I've outlined on this blog)


I'm not so sure. I wont be counting the number of swearwords, but its not difficult to see why the theological content has offended many.

At one point Christ is described as "a bit gay". This comment about Jesus' sexuality would cause offense to many


Why's that then?
PT
pthurst Founding member
This isn't really the place to discuss theology
KA
Katherine Founding member
pthurst posted:
But what disturbs me equally as much as those who want nothing apart from 24 hour Bible


It's already with us - have you not stumbled across the UCB Bible channel on Sky? Channel 884 I believe..... it's basically the Bible being read 24/7, usually the King James version.
PT
pthurst Founding member
Yes I have seen it. Thats a whole new topic there...
GS
Gavin Scott Founding member
But this really isn't the place...
MA
Marcus Founding member
pthurst posted:
Hymagumba posted:
pthurst posted:
I don't think it's relevant whether the complaints were lodged prior to, or after Xmission. What is of importance here is the actual content.


oh I think it's relevent when the complains are wrong. For example the pathetic MediaWatch 4000 swearwords complains should all be discounted and, as far as I'm concerned, so should the blasphemy complaints as I feel the comments about blasphemy were innaccurate (as I've outlined on this blog)


I'm not so sure. I wont be counting the number of swearwords, but its not difficult to see why the theological content has offended many.

At one point Christ is described as "a bit gay". This comment about Jesus' sexuality would cause offense to many



Aged 30, still single, thinks his mother is a virgin, goes to men only dinner parties


all a bit suspicious
TO
tombas47
Time for me to have my say.

I personally dont see what all the fuss is about. Why should a group of Christians tell us what to watch? Guess they havent heard of "freedom of choice". I myself am a Catholic, and I didnt watch the program, if people want to make fun out of Jesus, what do I care? Ok, I'm a Catholic, but I dont really pay any attention to what people say about religion.

Mediawatch and those Christian groups shouldnt tell us what to watch! I mean how did they do know it was offensive when they didnt even see it (Its kind of saying I hate pop music (I dont) when uve never listened to it!) Did they see any advanced views or read the tv guides (latter a possibilty)? I think not!

And thats my say on the matter.
NU
The Nurse
pthurst posted:
All that said. I do think that the real question to be raised should center on accountability. We all know that the BBC is funded via the licence fee. This means that as payers of the fee, we effectively 'own' the corporation. So did the BBC act appropriately by choosing to spend public money on transmitting this, despite over 45,000 complaints from 'investors'?


You can use terms like "effectively" and put words in quotes, but it doesn't change the fact that the licence fee payer does not own the BBC and we are not investors.

45,000 complaints, most of which were made before the programme went out and were based on an innacruate account of the show as published in the press. So we can safely disregard most of those. And even if we don't, 45000 is a shockingly tiny proportion of the licence fee paying public and therefore we can disregard it on those grounds

pthurst posted:
Its also worth remembering that the number of people unhappy with this programme far exceeds the 45,000 people who actually complained. There will be MILLIONS who deemed it unacceptable. Even if most people didn't act upon their impulsions, the fact that 45,000 did, cannot and should not be brushed under the carpet.


I'm sorry, but I think these "millions" of which you speak (where have you got this figure from by the way) can be brushed under the carpet. How hard is it to send an email, or if you don't have the Internet, make a phone call. Not very hard at all. So, I think we can safely assume that all the people who felt very strongly about it have registered their dislike. The only reason why anybody wouldn't comlpain is because they weren't all that bothered. So that still leaves us with a figure of 45,000 out of 15 million plus. Sorry, they can shut up and go and read the Mail.
WO
Woody_streatham
Why is Christianity so fragile that to offend it is a criminal offensive? Surely if God is all omnipotent he/she can take a bit of ribbing? I am sure he/she heard a lot worse when the Romans were in power.
JA
james2001 Founding member
Personally, I do find it incredibly amusing that most people who did compalin about the opera had not seen it, and probabally had no intention of doing so, and certinally didn't have much idea to its content-all any of them seem to know is that it contained 8000 swearwords (which it didn't- the actual figure being closer to 400) and that it showed Jesus in a nappy (actually aloin cloth) saying he was "a bit gay"- a quote which is almost certinally out of context (I didn't watch it myself). I wonder how many of these 45,000 comapliners actually sat down and watched- and I mean watched properly to understand the play and understand the content & context, not simply putting it on to be offended, switch off after a few minutes and complain. I doubt any of them did, and in this, they have proved themselves to be complete and total hypocrites,

Newer posts