A party for Massah John
John Beyer’s disappointment at the three main parties’ lack of interest in violence and porn (see below) led Mediawatchwatch to wonder where the poor chap might be best advised to lay down his cross (so to speak) come election day. Thanks to the Melon Farmers, we think we might have found just the ticket.
Look at this:
In particular, we need to take notice of the close correlation between the promotion of pornography and the prevalence of sexual violence and predation, which has been clearly established by researchers and police forces over the last few decades, as we shall see. Pornography has been normalised in Britain mainly by the mass media, and in particular by the newspapers corporations, through the casual use of pornographic photographs in newspapers. At the same time newspaper shops have stocked rows of clearly pornographic magazines in clear view of women and children. Moral standards have gradually but consistently been eroded and television companies now broadcast channels wholly devoted to pornography into British homes. If governments allow media tycoons to morally corrupt the population, then we cannot be surprised if our women and children are not safe.
I think you’ll agree, it could have been written by the man himself. You can read the rest of it at the party’s website. For those without the time or the stomach, here is the final paragraph:
We in the British National Party can assure the British people that when we have taken our country back for them, we will take a much dimmer view of pornographers and their destructive trade. Holly and Jessica, we will do it for you.
There you go, John. They might even bring back The Black and White Minstrel Show if you ask them nicely.
(Thanks to Dan Factor)
We’ll make sure we kick those nasty foriegners out and also ensure we don’t have anyone looking at any dirty magazines.
Makes you proud to be Britsh doesn’t it?
…puzzled…
Why not treat every policy on its own merits? The assumption that 100% of the BNP policies ‘must’ be bad ones is untenable without further investigation.
Most of their policies are bad.
While I have no time for the likes of John Beyer, I do think it’s dangerous to shout ‘fascist’ too quickly. Linking too many people to the BNP actually helps the latter.
Some people are instinctively censorial and need to be convinced by argument. If they feel someone like Beyer, acting on instincts similar to their own, is met by mere name calling they’re likely to remain unconvinced. And if the BNP’s name is invoked too often, they might ask themselves whether the BNP’s as bad as those they’re always arguing against make it out to be.
I understand and appreciate your concern, Stephen. Helping the BNP is the last thing I would want to do. However, name-calling is one of the main purposes of this website, alongside pointing and laughing. Although I do sometimes present arguments, I am under no delusion that the instinctively censorious will ever be convinced by them (and I doubt they read this blog anyway). Having said that, I didn’t actually call Beyer a fascist – I just pointed out that the only party openly supporting his agenda was a fascist party. I hope he would horrified at the suggestion that he vote BNP. (But you never know…)
As only wankers vote for the BNP aren’t they in danger of losing even more support with this policy anyway?
Oh eerr missus – where can I get more of this sex and porn then?
So, let’s get this straight: you are on the same side as the (presumably cynical, nasty and money-minded) pornographers & their grubby trade? And opposed to those who oppose them & it?
Seems an odd side to take?
But does someone like John Beyer oppose pornography or profit from it? In labelling everything with some sexual content from prime time BBC to a hardcore website as ‘pornography’ it seems to me he’s just playing out one side of a pointless game. A serious pornographer knows he only has to play the liberal free speech card, and in turn Beyer plays the conservative Christian card. So two equally cynical players spin out a game forever, provoking the odd kneejerk reaction to keep the scam going, sitting back and pocketing the cash, publicity or whatever else it is they sought to gain.
A serious debate about where the border between sensuality and pornography lies is always welcome, but this isn’t it.
Also, of course, Beyer bangs on about filth on telly, fim and stage, while ignoring the tits on page 3 of the Scum. Even though his group is called mediawatch. Is this some cynical ploy not to annoy the Scum so they’ll continue to take note of him?
No – it reflects the fact that there is so much dubious stuff about that one doesnt know where to start.
It may also reflect the fact that people become used to things over time: time is the best way of getting ppl to view things as ‘normal’ and ‘acceptable’.
I’m certainly on the side of pornographers – I believe increased sexual openness is an active social good, and we need more of it, not less. Society has actually made a bit of progress since the Internet ended forever the attempt to reduce it’s dissemination.
but doc, surely this shows just how skewed their priorities are. If they really wanted to complain about porn in the media, then they’d attack the scum, with their readership of about 10 million, rather than obscure films and tv programmes that will only be seen by a fraction of the number of the people who will see the tits in the scum.
Andy-
The situation is more complex than that. To at least some extent, most pornographers are in it for the money, and dont necessarily care at all how many ppl’s (& relations’) lives they ruin.
Tom-
It’s swings and roundabouts. There are milder cases with wide readership, and worse cases with smaller readership. One could argue for starting with either.
they could, but given that JSTO had no nudity in it at all, then the scsum would be a more aposite place to start than there.
also, if they were at all effective or honest they could, with one campaign, have a huge success and get a lot of people who otherwise find them to be a bunch of abhorrent meddlesome busybodies onside. They need the scum as much as they need the hate mail to spew bile on their behalf, so they won’t dare take them on
You could be right. Personally I doubt it, since all the mediawatch, mediamarch individuals I have come across are far too unworldly and uncalculating (which is a bit refreshing really) to have such a scheme in mind.