Translate
Showing posts with label Big Brother. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Big Brother. Show all posts
Friday, 29 May 2020
Friday, 19 July 2019
Friday, 20 November 2015
Who Wants To Be A Kardashian?
There is an Internet phenomena of which most of us have little exposure (including me) ..... its self-filming or video blogging via YouTube. This is where families or groups of people, detail their lives in a reality TV style, but on the Internet.
![]() |
| The Walton's - Role Models For YouTube Families |
Some of these shows apparently have many followers, but the majority
less so. Many in the US exhibit or promote particular lifestyle choices,
such as a deep Christianity, but others have more mundane concerns,
such as promoting both themselves and certain products (which are either sponsored or the show makers want to get paid to sponsor).
Labels:
Big Brother,
Bratayley Family,
Fly On The Wall,
Gogglebox,
Kardashians,
Null Points,
Paris Hilton,
Snookie,
The Nulls,
TOWIE,
VLogging,
Waltons TV,
Who Wants To Be A Khardashian,
YouTube Channels
Friday, 19 September 2014
Two Dead Quangos
What bloody use are the Advertising Standards Authority and its stupid twin brother Ofcom? I ask because there have been a series of ridiculous judgements by these two organisation, who are quite obviously scratching around for reasons to exist.
The Advertising Standards Authority has recently banned a Jaguar TV commercial which shows two F-Type convertible sport cars driving down a closed road. It took the view that two racing cars .... well, er, 'Glorified Speed'.
And Ofcom, well they are once again having a go at the Top Gear TV show .... because the show featured Jeremy Clarkson et al, looking at a bridge they had built on the River Kwai as a local man walked across it. Clarkson remarked: "That is a proud moment. But there's a slope on it." .... to which co-star Richard Hammond replied: "You're right. It's definitely higher on that side." .... however innocent this may seem, this it appears was both a truth, and a racial insult. Although I had to have the racial insult explained, apparently, 'a slope', can refer to Asians with slanted eyes.
Now I am not here to defend either Jaguar or Top Gear - although it seems that the BBC is trying to destroy its most popular younger male orientated TV show .... no doubt to be replaced with more episodes of EastEnders ... That'll bring in more women at least.
No, it was the basis of these actions that makes me sure that these two organisations are both past their useful life. Top Gear has a UK viewing figure of around Five Million while the Jag advert, if shown during a popular sports game, could well be seen by at least 8 to 10 million.
The number of complaints against Top Gear was two, I'll repeat that, just 2 complaints out of 5 million viewers .... so 0.000004 of the viewers complained. Statistically, that means that no one was offended.
Similarly, the number of complaints against the Jaguar Advert was was two, and I'll repeat that as well, just 2 complaints out of 5 million .... so again the best justification was 0.000004 of the viewers complained. Again, statistically, that means that no one was offended.
So effectively, what we can watch, what we can say or do is circumscribed by just two people (or maybe four, but I suspect that they may be the same two people). Now surely to trigger any actions, these two organisations must get a statistically significant number of complaints before they can act?
How can they act so harshly when just two complaints come in? To put this in perspective, the most complained about TV show in the UK this year was 'Big Brother' with 965 complaints, but incredibly popular, so ....? Its still on air, and no action taken. Even the drama 'Ripper St' attracted 88 complaints, but remained on air untouched by action. The Tom Cruise movie 'Jack Reacher' had 26 complaints .... but nothing. So why do two complaints cause warnings and removals for other programmes?
If their modus of action, is that any complaint is sufficient to act, then they are nothing more than censors, acting arbitrarily. As far as I can tell, there is no way to complain about their decisions, or the fact that they are acting unreasonably, in responding to single figure complaints.
In other words, just another couple of Quangos, who are acting like unelected governments, and who are now just laws unto themselves.
The Advertising Standards Authority has recently banned a Jaguar TV commercial which shows two F-Type convertible sport cars driving down a closed road. It took the view that two racing cars .... well, er, 'Glorified Speed'.
And Ofcom, well they are once again having a go at the Top Gear TV show .... because the show featured Jeremy Clarkson et al, looking at a bridge they had built on the River Kwai as a local man walked across it. Clarkson remarked: "That is a proud moment. But there's a slope on it." .... to which co-star Richard Hammond replied: "You're right. It's definitely higher on that side." .... however innocent this may seem, this it appears was both a truth, and a racial insult. Although I had to have the racial insult explained, apparently, 'a slope', can refer to Asians with slanted eyes.
![]() |
| Quangos Burning |
Now I am not here to defend either Jaguar or Top Gear - although it seems that the BBC is trying to destroy its most popular younger male orientated TV show .... no doubt to be replaced with more episodes of EastEnders ... That'll bring in more women at least.
No, it was the basis of these actions that makes me sure that these two organisations are both past their useful life. Top Gear has a UK viewing figure of around Five Million while the Jag advert, if shown during a popular sports game, could well be seen by at least 8 to 10 million.
The number of complaints against Top Gear was two, I'll repeat that, just 2 complaints out of 5 million viewers .... so 0.000004 of the viewers complained. Statistically, that means that no one was offended.
Similarly, the number of complaints against the Jaguar Advert was was two, and I'll repeat that as well, just 2 complaints out of 5 million .... so again the best justification was 0.000004 of the viewers complained. Again, statistically, that means that no one was offended.
So effectively, what we can watch, what we can say or do is circumscribed by just two people (or maybe four, but I suspect that they may be the same two people). Now surely to trigger any actions, these two organisations must get a statistically significant number of complaints before they can act?
How can they act so harshly when just two complaints come in? To put this in perspective, the most complained about TV show in the UK this year was 'Big Brother' with 965 complaints, but incredibly popular, so ....? Its still on air, and no action taken. Even the drama 'Ripper St' attracted 88 complaints, but remained on air untouched by action. The Tom Cruise movie 'Jack Reacher' had 26 complaints .... but nothing. So why do two complaints cause warnings and removals for other programmes?
If their modus of action, is that any complaint is sufficient to act, then they are nothing more than censors, acting arbitrarily. As far as I can tell, there is no way to complain about their decisions, or the fact that they are acting unreasonably, in responding to single figure complaints.
In other words, just another couple of Quangos, who are acting like unelected governments, and who are now just laws unto themselves.
Sunday, 12 April 2009
Free Speech Under Attack
In the UK we are living in very dangerous times for ‘free speech’ …. One of the risks of having an unwritten constitution with assumptions of ‘rights is that those ‘assumptions’, are often open to ‘reinterpretation' by any Government that wishes to do so, often with very little public scrutiny.
In general the left wing has always been anti libertarian in nature, with a vaguely Stalinist desire for information on its subjects, and a strong desire to control through legislation. The communist regimes from the USSR, through to China and North Korea, have tried to control information, and the means of its distribution.
In the UK this has manifested itself through banning type legislation on such subjects as Cigarettes, Alcohol, Maternity/Paternity laws and countless other laws. As well as negative acts such as the refusal to offer a referendum on Europe, open immigration policies, which allow uneducated immigrants to enter the UK (even Ministers boyfriends), and attempts to protect Islam from criticism.
But we in the West, have always prided ourselves that we have kept the state from having such control, that it would know what we thought, or who we associated with, but it maybe that the new ‘Spy’ legislation, that forces ISP to store information for at least 12 months, has ended that proud boast. The legislation comes at the behest of the EU, but as usual, this UK government has taken a chance to extend it further, and make it potentially the most totally intrusive peacetime piece of legislation in UK history.
The data stored, does not include the actual content of e-mails or actual recordings of net phone calls, or the content of the web pages visited (storage details are of e-mail addresses, website URLS visited and net phone call numbers), but is used to determine connections between individuals. Other Authorities can get access to the stored records with a warrant…. and on the flimsiest of grounds (Fly tipping gangs are one of the suggested uses!)
The Government says that, “adequate safeguards exist and that Access to communications data is governed by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (Ripa) which ensures that effective safeguards are in place and that the data can only be accessed when it is necessary and proportionate to do so."
But liberty campaigners suggest that this is the thin edge of a very long wedge, and that we are already in a police state, with better surveillance of its subjects than that of the STASI, NKVD or KGB, because we also have more surveillance cameras as well as ‘wire taps’ than any other industrialised state.
There are also grave doubts, that the proclaimed cause of all this loss of freedom “Anti Terrorism”, won’t actually be aided by this ‘data mining’, as the inferences to be drawn by the ‘connections’ can be wrong. After all we are all allegedly only 6 acquaintances away from anyone in the world (a much exaggerated urban myth, but you get my point) including presumably terrorists.
As Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group points out “People who really do want to do obnoxious things will simply hide themselves away - using encryption techniques and anonymisers. It will make it harder for the security services that actually monitor the people they think are a risk." . I for one would now consider using encryption software on a few secure folders to stop government snoops opening my files, but for the fact that in the UK, the authorities can use the Regulation of the Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa) to try to force people to hand over the 'keys' which lock and unlock encrypted data.
I repeat, we are at the cross roads as a nation with freedom of speech, thought, and conscience, and may even have tipped over the edge. We may have to rely on legal challenges that are underway in Sweden and Germany, to restore a balance to British freedoms that this government keeps attempting to curb.
However, plans to introduce the proposed ‘centralised’ database into legislation (which could cost millions), have continued to be put on the back burner, after it failed to appear in the draft Communications Data Bill. It follows the comments of the UK's Information Commissioner Richard Thomas, who called it a "step too far for the British way of life".
But whenever you give up a hard earned inch of your rights, you never get them back, and we are still creeping towards the day when your every moment will be monitored.
In general the left wing has always been anti libertarian in nature, with a vaguely Stalinist desire for information on its subjects, and a strong desire to control through legislation. The communist regimes from the USSR, through to China and North Korea, have tried to control information, and the means of its distribution.
In the UK this has manifested itself through banning type legislation on such subjects as Cigarettes, Alcohol, Maternity/Paternity laws and countless other laws. As well as negative acts such as the refusal to offer a referendum on Europe, open immigration policies, which allow uneducated immigrants to enter the UK (even Ministers boyfriends), and attempts to protect Islam from criticism.
But we in the West, have always prided ourselves that we have kept the state from having such control, that it would know what we thought, or who we associated with, but it maybe that the new ‘Spy’ legislation, that forces ISP to store information for at least 12 months, has ended that proud boast. The legislation comes at the behest of the EU, but as usual, this UK government has taken a chance to extend it further, and make it potentially the most totally intrusive peacetime piece of legislation in UK history.
The data stored, does not include the actual content of e-mails or actual recordings of net phone calls, or the content of the web pages visited (storage details are of e-mail addresses, website URLS visited and net phone call numbers), but is used to determine connections between individuals. Other Authorities can get access to the stored records with a warrant…. and on the flimsiest of grounds (Fly tipping gangs are one of the suggested uses!)
The Government says that, “adequate safeguards exist and that Access to communications data is governed by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (Ripa) which ensures that effective safeguards are in place and that the data can only be accessed when it is necessary and proportionate to do so."
But liberty campaigners suggest that this is the thin edge of a very long wedge, and that we are already in a police state, with better surveillance of its subjects than that of the STASI, NKVD or KGB, because we also have more surveillance cameras as well as ‘wire taps’ than any other industrialised state.
There are also grave doubts, that the proclaimed cause of all this loss of freedom “Anti Terrorism”, won’t actually be aided by this ‘data mining’, as the inferences to be drawn by the ‘connections’ can be wrong. After all we are all allegedly only 6 acquaintances away from anyone in the world (a much exaggerated urban myth, but you get my point) including presumably terrorists.
As Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group points out “People who really do want to do obnoxious things will simply hide themselves away - using encryption techniques and anonymisers. It will make it harder for the security services that actually monitor the people they think are a risk." . I for one would now consider using encryption software on a few secure folders to stop government snoops opening my files, but for the fact that in the UK, the authorities can use the Regulation of the Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa) to try to force people to hand over the 'keys' which lock and unlock encrypted data.
I repeat, we are at the cross roads as a nation with freedom of speech, thought, and conscience, and may even have tipped over the edge. We may have to rely on legal challenges that are underway in Sweden and Germany, to restore a balance to British freedoms that this government keeps attempting to curb.
However, plans to introduce the proposed ‘centralised’ database into legislation (which could cost millions), have continued to be put on the back burner, after it failed to appear in the draft Communications Data Bill. It follows the comments of the UK's Information Commissioner Richard Thomas, who called it a "step too far for the British way of life".
But whenever you give up a hard earned inch of your rights, you never get them back, and we are still creeping towards the day when your every moment will be monitored.
Wednesday, 14 March 2007
Revisionist History
Posthumous Knighthoods were being demanded by web poll for two dead football managers, by supporters of Liverpool, and Glasgow Celtic, football clubs.
Obviously the supporters of Everton and Glasgow Rangers, will now demand
knighthoods for one of their ex managers in order to keep the tribal
balance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Followers
Most Visited Posts In Last 30 Days
Blog Archive
-
▼
2026
(94)
-
▼
July
(15)
- Crucified Mayor
- Just A Russian Scandal
- The Man In The Hooded Mask
- Stunted Development
- Taxing The Walking Dead
- Frittering Away The Family Fortune
- Old Lemon
- The Weeping Woman Weeps No More
- Innocents Abroad
- Silence Is Golden
- High On The Hog And Other Tales
- Pig Headed
- They Need A Good Lickin
- Looking To The Healthy Future
- God By Another Name?
-
▼
July
(15)
Its a Pucking World
Dreamberry Wine Cover




