Click-thru campaigners account for 50% of complaints

According to Ofcom’s report, 50% of the 8,860 post-broadcast complaints were the result of a campaign by the Premier Media Group, owners of Premier Radio, a “Christian” radio station (sarcastic speech marks by Ekklesia). These were also the ones who complained to the ASA about the Channel 4 poster for Shameless (see 26th April article below).

Before the broadcast, this group gave out contacts for the BBC complaints department four times an hour on air, prompting the BBC to complain to Premier for jamming their switchboards. They also conducted a campaign via Political Wizard internet campaigning and lobbying group, which urged Christians to “Click here to petition your MP, the BBC and OFCOM all at once!”

The Christian Broadcasting Council assisted PMG in this campaign by sending this e-mail to its members with a “Please forward this e-mail to as many people as possible” plea at the end.

So, as PMG were such a major force in rallying these one-click whingers, it’s hardly surprising that Peter Kerridge, the chief executive of Premier Christian Radio, is the first to comment on the ruling. He describes it as a

slap in the face for traditional Christian faith and practice

and adds:

“I am extremely disappointed by Ofcom’s decision. Freedom of expression should never be sufficient reason to attack the values of any section of the community and this particular programme appeared to set out to do this to people of Christian faith.

And not a hair shifted out of place as the Whole Point flew right over his head.

21 Responses to “Click-thru campaigners account for 50% of complaints”

  1. Dan Factor says:

    Perhaps Premier would prefer us to be forced to listen to one of their dull on air sermons.

  2. Christopher Shell says:

    There is a point of view that ‘freedom of expression’ can be used as an excuse for all sorts of things. Does anyone deny this?

  3. Andrew Nixon says:

    I doubt anyone would, but knowing you, you’d probably try to say that we were denying it, in spite of all evidence to the contary.

  4. Tania says:


  5. Christopher Shell says:

    Great! We are agreed that the principle of ‘freedom of expression’ can be abused. Do we also agree that there are many people of whom it can be said that if you give them an inch leeway they will take a mile?

  6. tom p says:

    Everything can be abused, doc. The fact that a principle can be abused does not mean that all arguments that use the principle as one of their supporting tenents are all inherently flawed. Where you’re trying to steer things is clear, and it’s a rather tendentious path you’re treading.
    Give ’em an inch… applies to all groups that one is opposed to. I used the same phrase recently to describe you gullibles’ attempts to stifle freedom of expression (in some cases with violence, like the sikhs, and in others with rentamob click through e-mails and legal action)

  7. tom p says:

    obviously, tenents shoulda been tenets. damn my typing.

  8. Christopher Shell says:

    The point is only that sometimes if people take a mile, the end result is ten times worse than it would have been if they had never been given an inch in the first place.

    Not giving an inch is never the best option. But if the only two options, in practice, are (a) not even an inch and (b) a mile, then it’s clear that there will be plenty of occasions when (a) is better than (b).

  9. tom p says:

    Surely taking a mile would make it 63,360 times worsethan taking an inch.
    How d’you like them figures, eh?

  10. Christopher Shell says:

    Ouch! Could be a good illustration of why one shouldnt allow the possibility of ‘taking a mile’ in the first place.

  11. tom p says:

    False dichotomy!

  12. Christopher Shell says:

    It is in theory a false dichotomy. But in practice, can one point to any society where (e.g.) the relaxation of abortion laws has led to a situation where abortion levels are low? Or even where the letter of the law is adhered to at all?

  13. tom p says:

    The letter of most laws isn’t adhered to, generally. That’s why speed camers have tolerance levels so you can do 5-10 miles an hour above the limit they’re supposed to be enforcing.
    The purpose of the law was to ensure that young women didn’t die having back-street abortions. In that sense it’s clearly working.

  14. Christopher Shell says:

    The truth is that if there is a tolerance level then the real speed limit is 80mph.

    I guess this point doesnt answer the choice thing. The woman makes 2 choices (because she ‘can’), the baby none (being powerless). Not fair, not loving.

  15. Andy L says:

    The fetus none because it doesn’t have a brain to make choices with, and is not in any way alive.

  16. Christopher Shell says:

    In any way at all??? In that case it is indistinguishable in this regard from a piece of rock. Is it?

    We nake choices for our children which are the best for them in retrospect. You know that babies & young children can’t always make choices either – is it therefore ok to kill them? no – it’s not ok to harm them in even a slight way, so killing is way out of court.

    100% of the population would have chosen not to be aborted (given that they have not committed suicide). So this is an instance where it is simple to make a choice on the fetus/baby’s behalf. He/she would certainly choose to live.

  17. tom p says:

    100% – that’s a pretty big figure to be bandying about. What about the attempted suicides who haven’t succeeded yet? What about the miserable people working their way up to it? Even if we write them off, then your figure is still flawed because of course 100% of people alive today haven’t successfully committed suicide. It’s axio-fucking-matic. If a statistician used your logic they’d be run out of town with the sound of mocking laughter from fellow statisticians ringing in their ears.
    Also, according to you (when ridiculously attempting to claim that there was no such thing as an accidental pregnancy), we know the potential consequences of our actions, and in taking these actions we accept the consequences if they happen. Thus, any road traffic accident victim or death of a fatso through heart disease or a smoker through lung cancer or heart disease is really suicide.

  18. Christopher Shell says:

    You could call it suidice. There is, though, a conceptual difference, and it would be clearer to employ two separate terms.

    Even if the true figure is 90%, that means that one is only 10% likely to be right in choosing that one’s child would not mind being ‘knocked off’.
    Even then, the person in question would never become suicidal till later in their life. How many suicidal babies or children has anyone come across? (‘Waaah! Angst! It is enough, I cant hack this world any longer – where are the sleeping pills?’) So 100% (excepting cases of child mortality) would be being robbed of a long period of life which was theirs and which no-one had the right to take away from them.

  19. Christopher Shell says:

    It makes sense, innit?
    For ‘suidice’ read ‘suicide’.

  20. tom p says:

    Even if they wouldn’t have chosen not to be born, until they have attained a level of consciousness, then they are not full human beings. They are little more than tumours at the early stage, which is why I have no problem with abortion laws.
    A fertilised embryo is not a human, it’s as simple as that.

  21. […] became really well known only in the wake of the JS:TO protests, and that that protest was largely coordinated – presumably at some expense – by Premier Christian Radio. Green’s fame stemme […]