Comments on: Green threatens regional theatre, gets response

By: Dr Christopher Shell

Dr Christopher Shell — Mon, 14 Mar 2005 14:48:41 +0000

CRIMES: Many things are not criminal but still no good to anyone. Many things that are now not criuminal have been criminal in the past (and vice-versa). Many things that are criminal in the UK are not criminal in various other countries (and vice-versa).

We need to have the imagination to realise that the UK law in AD 2005 is not a given or a blueprint: it is one of many variations on what a national law can be. (Unless we take the untenable position that we in our age and nation are clearly wiser than people of any other time or nation.) There’s all the difference in the world between legal and beneficial, or between legal and right.

You can’t honestly think that UK law as it now stands is precisely right in all its particulars. But if it isnt, then it cant be appealed to as a basis.

By: Olly

Olly — Mon, 14 Mar 2005 13:21:17 +0000

The difference being that murder and child abuse are crimes; profanity is not. There are laws against blasphemy but these are almost always stopped as the AG is “not willing to proceed”, since the Humans Rights Act 1998 now gives freedom of speech precedent over outdated laws.

I appreciate that many were unhappy with the fact that their money was used to pay for this, but I’m an atheist and my licence fee money is spent on Songs of Praise, Heaven and Earth, Thought of the Day (which actively does not allow atheist thinkers), Midnight Mass, and others. Those are on annually, weekly, and even daily, and so cost far more than a one-off opera.

By: Dr Christopher Shell

Dr Christopher Shell — Fri, 11 Mar 2005 14:05:26 +0000

Great! Let’s show snuff movies and footage of what really went on in Neverland.
If people don’t like it they can just change channel.
???
I believe your principle cannot be applied.

By: darren

darren — Fri, 11 Mar 2005 09:48:24 +0000

Hey Christopher some people will always complain no matter what is shown on TV but i think if they dont like the show just change channel!

By: Christopher Shell

Christopher Shell — Wed, 09 Mar 2005 10:31:44 +0000

Hi Nick

What proportion were messages of support?

By: Christopher Shell

Christopher Shell — Wed, 09 Mar 2005 10:30:50 +0000

Hi Joe

Can you name a single programme in the history of broadcasting whose viewers did not significantly outnumber the complainers?

If not, then the point you make is not significant.

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 09 Mar 2005 09:21:23 +0000

Three cheers for Gwenda Hughes – hip hip…

By: Nick

Nick — Tue, 08 Mar 2005 20:49:55 +0000

And it’s worth pointing out that some of the supposed complaints were actually letters and messages of support but the BBC counted everything it received to come up with that number.

By: Joe

Joe — Tue, 08 Mar 2005 18:59:31 +0000

We were quite specifically talking about Stephen Green. I described his operation as ‘minuscule’ because, as you acknowledge yourself, it is. He could only muster five people for his debut demo at the Cambridge Theatre (and even then felt driven to massage the numbers upward in his report). The size of other organisations or of ‘megachurches’ doesn’t really enter into it.

As to how many others complain but still agree – I don’t know. And neither do you. Maybe there’s lots. Maybe there’s none. But I do know that the complainers were outnumbered 36 to 1 by the people who watched it.

By: Christopher Shell

Christopher Shell — Tue, 08 Mar 2005 17:48:39 +0000

Minuscule? CV may be, but sympathisers are legion.
You know as well as I do that JSTO got by far the record number of complaints – 20x or 30x the previous record.
For every person who does complain, how many opthers dont complain but still agree?
You also know that CV is not the only game in town – e.g. Mediamarch, Mediawatch, CCTV.
London is full of megachurches in which you will scarcely find one supporter of your point of view.
In the light of this, is it truth or ideology to use the word ‘minuscule’? Even the word ‘small’ would be controversial?