Open Letter to Channel 4: Brass Eye Was Unacceptable

Stories

Diaries

Polls

Users

Web Adequacy.org

Home

About

Topics

Rejects

Abortions

This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.

Open Letter to Channel 4: Brass Eye Was Unacceptable

Author:

darkside

Topic:

Censorship

Posted:

Jul 27, 2001

Comments:

In the never-ending battle for viewing figures and advertising revenue, broadcasting companies are constantly pushing at the boundaries of taste and decency. Last night, one television company over-stepped the mark.

On 26 July 2001, the British television station Channel Four offended a nation by screening the most despicable programme in living memory. An episode of the satirical show Brass Eye entitled "Paedogeddon" went beyond the pale by making light of the serious issue of child abuse.

We at adequacy.org have made it our mission to campaign tirelessly against paedophilia, having notable success with our shocking investigation of institutionalised paedophilia in schools. Outraged by last night's broadcast, we have prepared this open letter to Channel Four to demand an explanation for their unforgivable error of judgment.

More stories by

darkside

	The Sinister Secret of our Schools
	Good Golly

Channel Four Television is no stranger to controversy. It has invoked the wrath of many with programmes that promote racial stereotypes and lesbianism and has even funded a film glorifying heroin abuse. However, with last night's episode of Brass Eye, Channel Four sank to new depths.

Brass Eye's crude treatment of the child abuse issue was a cruel and tactless ploy intended to generate cheap publicity and outrage, at the expense of those hurt by pederasts. The cynical decision to show Brass Eye immediately after the wholesome family entertainment of Big Brother so that unsuspecting viewers may be subjected to this piece of televisual excrement is particularly sickening.

Countless aspects of this programme were both exploitative and disturbing:

Sexually explicit images of children, which were even classified on-air as being "obscene" by a former head of the Obscene Publications Branch, were shown to the unsuspecting viewing public. Broadcasting this foul artwork must surely have provided cheap titillation to any perverts watching the programme.
Mockery was made of last summer's anti-paedopile protests by concerned mothers. It is simply unacceptable to criticise the genuine fears of honest law-abiding citizens in this manner.
The sickening music of the notorious American paedophile rap musician "JLb-8" was openly promoted on this programme.
Numerous celebrities, including members of parliament, newscasters and a musician were ridiculed by their unsuspecting involvement with this programme.
Worst of all, real children appeared in this programme. It is clearly wrong to expose them to this sinister subject matter at such a tender age. The experiences of this programme may permanently damage these poor infants.

Channel Four's trivialisation of paedophilia was simply disgraceful. By poking fun at this grave issue, Brass Eye has cheapened the suffering of countless innocent victims of child abuse. Furthermore, by portraying pederasts in a humourous way, this sinister television programme threatens to make paedophilia socially acceptable.

Clearly, no consideration has been given to the long term implications of this programme. How many innocent young lives will be ruined by this crass piece of television? Claiming that this programme was "satirical" does not excuse the terrible error of judgment. Some topics are simply too serious to be treated in a humourous manner.

I invite Channel Four to respond to this open letter by posting to the discussion forum below. Concerned viewers are also welcome to use our discussion forum to make their own opinions heard.

In the meantime, I urge Channel Four to reconsider their decision to televise another similarly unpalatable programme called "Pedo-Files" that was promoted during Brass Eye's commercial break. Child abuse is a problem that affects millions of people and any future television programmes ought to treat the issue with the gravity it deserves.

	Big Brother wholesome entertainment? (none / 0) (#1)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jul 27th, 2001 at 12:34:30 PM PST

	I would rather load up goatse.cx than have to watch reality TV. Reality TV is the absolute worst idea since the invention of the TV news magazine (60 min, Dateline)

	Open Letter to C4 (none / 0) (#3)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jul 27th, 2001 at 01:32:37 PM PST

	Well done. Kep up the good work.

	Re: brass eye special (none / 0) (#4)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jul 27th, 2001 at 01:53:04 PM PST

	The reaction you've shown here is exactly what the Brass Eye special was making fun of. It didn't target child abuse, nor did it glorify it... it simply made fun of the media hysteria surrounding this issue. Maybe if there weren't "concerned" Daily Mail readers setting fire to paedophiles and throwing bricks through the windows of PAEDIOTRICIANS houses, the issue will be sorted out faster. Chris Morris doesn't condone child abuse. Brass Eye Special was hilarious and it made the people who "got" it think about it. It also shows up these celebrities for being idiots who don't actually care enough about what charity they're speaking for that they don't do any research beforehand. This programme would never increase child abuse, in fact, it is far more likely to stop it than these phony little charities. Maybe it's time you stopped being the joke and start being the person laughing at the joke... Also: JLB-8 is NOT a real rapper, if you'd looked carefully you might have seen that he is CHRIS MORRIS in disguise, it's a JOKE. So was the trailer for the Pedo-Files. Idiots.

	Brilliant! (none / 0) (#5)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jul 27th, 2001 at 02:34:54 PM PST

	I haven't laughed so much for a long time (well, since the BE special last night). Always good to find another comedy website that "gets it". I don't think Morris and co could have done beter themselves. Keep it up!

	I didn't get it. (none / 0) (#44)
	by bailey on Tue May 14th, 2002 at 04:39:16 PM PST

	I take it you've never been a victim of child abuse or seen the effects it has on a child and their family. I hope you never are, either. I have, and funnily enough, I didn't "get" the programme at all. Must be too close to the subject matter. Satire, humour, all words that didn't really cross my mind at the time.

	brasseye American paedophile rap musician "J (none / 0) (#6)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jul 27th, 2001 at 03:30:25 PM PST

	he does not exist he was made up for the show fool

	and the Pedo-Files is not a program! (none / 0) (#15)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jul 28th, 2001 at 05:26:22 AM PST

	it was a part of brasseye. did you watch the show and understand what it was really about?

	thickness (none / 0) (#7)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jul 27th, 2001 at 03:57:42 PM PST

	I find it hard to believe that one person can be so utterly stupid as to have written the article above. Surely this article has to be a joke ??

	Hello, Chris... (none / 0) (#8)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jul 27th, 2001 at 04:21:34 PM PST

	Once again, your cover has been blown! I'd like to congratulate you on making the best piece of television I've seen all year. I posted this on the channel 4 website- don't get too big-headed now... "What really makes me sick is the fact that paedophila, sex offences, murder, famine, disease and genocide occur in the real world, yet narrow-minded people like you only seem remotely bothered when someone makes a TV programme about them. Phoning Channel 4 with an ill-thought-out complaint will not help put an end to paedophila. However, raising awareness- as Chris Morris has certainly done with Brass Eye- will, as long as people take the right action. Instead of spending money on phone calls to Channel 4's switchboard, why not send it to the NSPCC? Or you could channel your rage and energy into something useful- get together to form your own anti-paedophile charity or support group. I suspect that some of you would rather spend your cash on your oh-so-important TV licenses, and your time watching programmes that you know will offend you, rather than doing something positive. The Brass Eye special exposed the fact that vigilante action is equally useless- planning witchhunts and throwing eggs are not going to put a stop to paedophilia. What offended me most was the reaction to the sketch featuring an American children's beauty pageant; such events DO occur in the US, where parents dye their children's hair, make them wear "adult" clothes and make-up, and make them perform in front of adults. It is known that beauty pageants do attract paedophiles and sex offenders, and one participant was even sexually assaulted and murdered, yet a work of fiction attracts more complaints. The sketch featured a child with breast implants- the point made here seems to be "whatever next?". Some of you may remember the (now banned by the ITC- cheers guys!) sketch in jam where a couple offered a mantally retarded relative for sexual favours in return for a reduction in the price of a house because she "wouldn't mind what you do so much"; a relative of mine applied for a job in a nursing home, but refused the offer when she saw that mentally ill patients were kept in a dark, dirty room because they "wouldn't mind so much". It is well known that a great deal of sexual abuse occurs in these homes because the patients cannot put up resistance or complain. Perhaps you should spend your time campaigning against events that really do harm. Yes, the Brass Eye special contained items that may have upset abuse victims, but why would they want to watch such a programme in the first place? This issue also reminds me of the Benneton advert featuring a picture of a newborn baby. One woman complained that it upset her because she had just suffered a miscarriage. What did she propose as a solution? A ban on carrying babies in public? Every programme has the potential to upset somebody, but viewers cannot be wrapped up in cotton wool. I suspect that many of you are the same people who complain about Tony Blair's "Nanny State", and the decision to award the 2008 Olympic Games to China, despite the country's fascist regime. Just be grateful that UK broadcasters have freedom of expression, and that you have freedom of choice. You didn't have to watch it, and it was broadcast after the watershed. I suggest you watch the repeat now, while you still have the priviledge."

	Question? (5.00 / 1) (#13)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jul 28th, 2001 at 05:00:01 AM PST

	Did C4 or chris morris donate the profits from the program to the nspcc or childrens charitys? I think no, it was made for profit and humour, not to bring to light tha despicable crime of paedophilia. Your views are ill thought out and debased from truth.

	hmmm (none / 0) (#14)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jul 28th, 2001 at 05:23:50 AM PST

	You don't have a clue, do you? How do you know whether or not any money went to charities? oh, because of your views and not finding out the facts! same goes for the celebs in the show. they didn't reseach! you might as well of been in the brasseye special

	yaha (none / 0) (#18)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jul 28th, 2001 at 09:19:32 AM PST

	you are the stupidest person ive ever seen. for starters, what exactly do you mean by profits? i doubt very much the programme generates any money, other than a little revenue from advertising, which all goes to channel 4. if you want to complain about tv companies creaming profits from shows, why not look at big brother? millions has been made from the phone lines alone, yet only 20 percent is given to charity. look at the lottery, couldnt they do more to help? so basically, shut up you fool you know nothing. nice article by the way

	What, they made a profit? Shock horror! (none / 0) (#40)
	by Nobody on Mon Aug 6th, 2001 at 11:19:06 AM PST

	Is a programme only allowed to have one purpose?! Besides, how could they continue to make thought-provoking television without money? I think satire provided a good vehicle for the message of the programme. Imagine this: a woman loves helping and working with children, so she gets a job at the NSPCC. If they pay her for the job, does that mean that she is insincere?

	Free speech doesn't equal the right to offend. (none / 0) (#45)
	by bailey on Tue May 14th, 2002 at 04:55:28 PM PST

	On the whole you have a thorough argument. Except for one thing. Chris Morris failed in what he intended on doing. He hasn't brought to light anything new. Most people are aware of the beauty pagents in America. (And just a tiny amount of morale fibre woudl tell a person that making a four year old look like a twenty yer old is evil) He would have done better making a Hard hitting "Proper" documentary that made people discuss the actual facts and not discuss whether it should have been aired or not. As for your point of why would any child abuse victims watch in the first place. They probably wouldn't, but their families might. In the vain attempt to see whether this man would do anything constructive. (NO, before you go off, I didn't see the first screening, haven't even heard of it before the other day, and didn't see the warning at the beginning because I was waiting for the kettle to boil.) But he didn't. He made a mockery out of childrens' suffering. Seeing a child with "breast implants" shouldn't make one laugh (even if it was obvious it wasn't real) it should make one sick. I'm sure Sarah Payne's mother laughed her socks off. Because although I'm sure she didn't watch it, the outrage it caused would have been enough to draw her attention to it. Bringing with it, yet more pain. Free speech is all well and good, but how free does it make the person having to listen. I'm all for bringing these things to the fore and I do not agree with "vigilanties". But things should be done tastefully and without offense. Child abuse victims are scarred for life and while no ammount of "Cotton wool" would make it better. Having it rammed in their faces by insensitive people isn't going to help either.

	a ha ha ha (none / 0) (#9)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jul 27th, 2001 at 09:03:15 PM PST

	very funny, walking the fine line between humour and mentalism. not surprising that some morris fans were taken in, this is the kind of stupidity that people actually come out with.

	open letter (none / 0) (#10)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jul 28th, 2001 at 01:07:01 AM PST

	er, are you morris or are you stupid?

	is that exclusive or inclusive 'or'? (none / 0) (#21)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jul 28th, 2001 at 02:50:33 PM PST

	Because if it is exclusive, I am afraid your grasp of reality must be very narrow. There are many things the author could be, none of which would require him to be "stupid" or "morris" (whatever that means). I am afraid your message is ambiguous to the point where I can't tell at all whether it's reasonable or nonsense. Thus, it is nonsense.

	*stretch* (none / 0) (#11)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jul 28th, 2001 at 02:31:08 AM PST

	goatse IS wholesome family entertainment :) Great article, nicely done.

	Well done CM!! (none / 0) (#12)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jul 28th, 2001 at 03:20:17 AM PST

	Fantastic work, well thought up and excellently delivered.

	Darkside, please read (none / 0) (#16)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jul 28th, 2001 at 06:03:48 AM PST

	How much for your children? How much for the little girl? JLB-8 RAWKs - I've got all his albums. I'd let my 6 year-old daughter sleep with him...

	You dumbass!....Fell for it hook line and sinker! (none / 0) (#17)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jul 28th, 2001 at 06:20:34 AM PST

	So...lets see....you thought JL b-8 was real...<snigger>...and that Channel 4 is going to show the Paedo Files....<chortle>....despite the fact that Morris was clearly in both? Do you have a clue? You are part of his master plan. To quote Morris in the 'Moral Decline' episode of Brasseye, "(Viewers) comments tonight have been described as 'rabid', 'pig-ignorant', and 'stulltifyingly ill-informed'." Oh and to start trying to explain how this subject is too serious to make into satire, completely misses the point about what satire is. Satire is dangerous. Satire makes people think about things the mainstream would rather not think about. Chris Morris and co. are this countries only TRUE satirist. Chris Morris is God! Sorry Chris I know you hate being called this but you you have my utmost respect. And thank you Channel 4 for your continued devotion to showing brave and ballsey work. I have already phoned them up to thank them. Long Live Chris Morris Long Live the Aftermouth of Brasseye!

	Informative (5.00 / 4) (#19)
	by aoc on Sat Jul 28th, 2001 at 09:49:43 AM PST

	Please tell me more about satire.

	Tell you about satire? (none / 0) (#22)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jul 28th, 2001 at 06:11:01 PM PST

	I have a feeling you're about to tell me about what you think it is. I believe I've just made my position clear. You're a Have I Got News For You fan I take it....dangerous, establishment-rocking stuff.....alledgedly! :) Louis

	Triple-bluff? (none / 0) (#33)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jul 30th, 2001 at 12:18:39 PM PST

	Brass Eye was....how shall I put this? Brimming up the fudge tunnel with irony. You seem to have grasped this. The article posted on this site was also, quite hilariously, irony-d up the wazzoo. My question is this: Did you know that? Are you taking the piss out of the article, or being ironic yourself? You kids today, it's so hard to tell.... PotatoJunkie

	Typically Dumb Reaction To Comedy Genius (none / 0) (#23)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jul 28th, 2001 at 08:06:31 PM PST

	by Andy the Ginge. Many points i could make but as they have been made ad nauseum already i won't go into much detail. You have done what i was once told never to do by my German teacher at school. See one word and make up a story. You have to read the whole thing before you go on about something to which you have no idea what it is really about. This may be a useful thing to bear in mind in future. You see a "rapper" called JLB-8 and don't realise he isn't real. He is Chris Morris dressed like a cross breed of Eminem and Limp Bizkit's Fred Durst. They are quite big in music right now by the way.. in case you weren't sure. The trail during the ad break was part of the show, hence the rolling 4 screen shot after it. This has been done before by Morris when during a supposed ad break the death of Clive Anderson was announced. You have failed to realise that the show is not pandering to paedophiles. It is attacking the likes of the tabloids and crappy 10 min news info programmes like Tonight With... Trevor MacDonald and that ilk who sensationalise stories for ratings. Were you so outraged when Coronation Street had rape and paedophilia in it over the course of a manner of weeks just to get a few more ratings. Probably not. Coz this was "real". It didn't make you think coz you could lie back and think.. this isn't really happening. What probably shocked you most was that if you didn't know what it was you may have thought it was a proper news report. Just take a closer look next time and you'll see what Morris was actually getting at. Andy.

	Your children are in danger from Channel 4 Paedos! (none / 0) (#24)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jul 28th, 2001 at 08:56:00 PM PST

	After viewing the "Brass Eye" Programme a whole army of middle aged white men in anoraks have been brainwashed into committing acts of indecency against YOUR KIDS! A special taskforce has been set up to trace all viewers of the programme through the latent video impression(tm) system so that they can all be ROUNDED UP and BURNT for the SICK people that they are. The full name and address of every viewer will be published in the News of the World on Sunday. Don't miss it! Yesterday a special armed police squad visited the channel four building and rounded up all the sickos who made the programme so that they could be taken to schools to be confronted by angry children wielding sharp compasses. One child said "My mommy told me that she read in the Daily Mail that these people was gonna hurt me, and that I should poke their eyes out before they had a chance" Do these people not read the papers? Do they not realise that talking about paedophiles means that YOU ARE ONE?

	ahhhh don't you just love it! (4.00 / 1) (#25)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jul 29th, 2001 at 02:23:43 AM PST

	heheh....I have to laugh at the stupidity of people that don't know when something is real or not. To actually be sucked in by the idiocies expressed in this programme is 100% proof that some just don't understand satire.

	Erm.. double bluff? (4.00 / 1) (#28)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jul 29th, 2001 at 02:27:17 PM PST

	Before you go too far down this road, read the article one more time. It's so laughably wrong on every point it makes, have you considered that it could be part of the whole hoax? That you wound make you somewhat "hoist on your own petard"...!!

	Heh (none / 0) (#39)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Aug 6th, 2001 at 10:15:15 AM PST

	And then you could have satire mocking the people mocking the people who are mocking the satirical response to the brass eye satire. I think my brain hurts. Could we develop up perpetual motion through infinite petard hoisting? Ice cream doesn't have teeth.

	The really sickening thing demonstrated by "B (4.50 / 2) (#26)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jul 29th, 2001 at 12:53:11 PM PST

	What an interesting Social experiment Chris Morris has conducted. We should pay heed and learn from what has happened here. Let's deal with the `Moral Outrage' first. I am a father of two young girls. Peadophilia is a serious issue. When and where it occurs and damages children and families my heartfelt sympathies are extended to those who are affected. However I was not outraged by this programme. (Actually I was, but for other reasons which I hope to make clear) Some of the humour I have to admit did make me uncomfortable - but that was clearly intended. However I do not think that this programme's treatment of the subject is any less responsible than the hysterical manner in which the matter has been treated generally in the media to date. Indeed I doubt very much if this programme will result in any peadiatricians being evicted from their homes by vigilante mobs. Sometimes, treating a serious issue with humour allows us a deeper insight and perspective on a subject than we would normally allow ourselves. I'm not going to pretend that the humour created in this programme was a well-crafted vehicle for promoting such perspectives , however it clearly makes the viewer approach the issue from a different angle than has been presented to them in the past. The really disturbing point about this programme - and it was clearly Chris Morris' intention to highlight this - is that it seems that it is impossible for us to have rational debate about serious issues such as peadophilia. The reactions in the press since the broadcast have clearly demonstrated this. There have been tirades of vitriol spouted purely because someone has dared to treat the subject with humour and -as usual - they failed to grasp what the programme was trying to achieve, which has nothing to do with peadophilia at all! Indeed I would not be surprised if Chris Morris has been responsible for some of the outraged correspondance dutifully printed in the press and on the internet himself. Moreover, it has demonstrated the power of television to influence behaviour more than any other experiment I have seen so far. Many studies have been made in the past regarding TV's influence on our lives and have drawn no real conclusions. This programme should stand out as a milestone in proving how much our lives are influenced by this powerful and misunderstood force. This programme has clearly demonstrated several worrying social issues which we need to be aware of: 1) The responsibility of those who are made `famous' on TV to understand the power and influence they have and not to wield it lightly 2) The responsibility we all have to understand how much we are influenced by TV (and other Media - but especially TV) and learn to treat the information that is beamed into our homes with careful consideration and rationale. 3) The way in which we as TV viewers allow our opinions to be coloured (and often formed) by celebrities who we have never met, do not know, but who we know are recognised usually for pretending to be something they aren't! Imagine if there had been no humour injected into this programme. It would have been passed off and digested as a serious piece of documentary, endorsed by well-known celebrities. The internet would have received another `Slamming' in the media as being purely a vehicle for interactive filth, stealing our childrens innocence from under our noses and so on.. Let's face it - the celebrities who are complaining about being `duped' by Brass Eye are not really concerned bacause it may jeapordise charitable endorsements in future. They're complaining because they have been made to look foolish, and have been exposed for simply allowing their faces to be `stamped' on a campaign in order to give it credence in the public eye. The statements that have been made by these people in this and previous programmes clearly show that they have simply read prepared statements to influence the public without performing even any basic background research into the subject they're pontificating upon. In most cases a few seconds careful thought about the words they are being asked to read should have given the game away. Some of the statements made have been so wildly fanciful - I remember particularly the feature on `heavy electricity'- that one has to question the mental capacity of some of the people we place on such high pedestals. This is the height of irresponsibility! These people must understand that there are great swathes of the populace who believe implicitly every word they say. This is not their fault, but they must understand the responsibility that goes with their positions. Finally, I believe we owe a debt of thanks to the makers of this programme for deliberately `hamming it up' however distasteful the humour involved. If they hadn't, the great British public and the pontificating press would have been completely taken in, and - most worryingly of all - most of them wouldn't even have realised it. Thanks Chris - for showing us all once again how really gullible and stupid we all are.

	Objection (none / 0) (#43)
	by bailey on Tue May 14th, 2002 at 04:26:45 PM PST

	What's gulliable and stupid is letting people like Chris Morris loose with a camera. Okay, fair point, the "celebs" were taken in and should have done their research. But does this justify what happened in this programme? Sex rape (give it any fancy name you like, but rape is what it boils down, either of the mind or body) tends to bring out the protective instincts in people. (Most people anyway.) Which is probably what happened with these "celebs". They probably didn't think that anyone in their right mind would ever, in a million years think Child rape was funny enough to make a satirical programme. Slam them if you will, but make sure it's for the right reasons. Richard Blackwoods reply was spot on. Which brings me to the programme itself. I can only say that for the few people that actually found this amusing or inoffensive has never had to witness abuse at first hand. It destroys. It DOES make children victims. It does knock the entire future of that child off balance. It does hurt. Unbearably. Trying to turn it into satire just does not work. Chris Morris may have had good intentions behind his thinking, but it didn't work. He would have been better doing a proper documentary that educated people without "Humour". Children being "touched" or spoken to suggestively or interfered with in any way is not funny. It is not satire. It is sad. It is something we cannot take lightly. I just hope that none of you ever get the social worker and policeman calling at your door saying that your child is suspected of being in danger from someone in a place of trust. It doesn't make me laugh. It made me cry.

	One fine, fine article. (none / 0) (#27)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jul 29th, 2001 at 02:24:11 PM PST

	I have a suspicion that Chris Morris himself is behind this website's article. Only someone with such a finely honed satire gene could have crafted the fine prose above. This HAS to be a fake! The irony of misunderstanding the meaning of the program. The deep irony of taking the rapper and the "advert" seriously, despite the fact that they were both very obviously Chris himself (even without a disguise!) Yes, we certainly have a comedy genius at work here. The tone of outrage, the tone of horror - it could be straight from a Daily Mail page! Oh, and I liked the concept that poking fun at celebrities is comehow a bad thing to do! Ok fair enough, they thought that they were doing a good thing, but really - most of those fuckers are so publicity-hungry they'd advertise S&M gear if it'd get them on TV enough... Ask yourselves, outraged of Milton Keynes: 1. Where were the obscene images of children? 2. Which anti-paedophile protests by concerned mothers ever existed? All I saw was a hysteria of vigilante action whipped up by a crass tabloid, aimed 99% of the time at getting the wrong person beaten up! I'd be a lot happier with these "concerned mothers" if: a) they were motivated by concern, and not the NOTW. b) they were concerned enough to still be looking for the paedophiles now, now that the furore have disappeared c) they actually got the nonces, and not anyone with the phrase "paed" in their job title... 3. What does a Google search for "JLb-8" get you? 4. How were any children harmed in the making of this program? As I type this, I feel more and more convinced that this article is a hoax, and so in some clever way, the jokes on me for getting the first hoax, but not the second. I feel almost stupid actually typing this, but the horror that some people might (and ARE - e.g. Blunkett) actually be slow enough to not get the point is too frightening. Over & out

	Good stuff. (none / 0) (#29)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jul 29th, 2001 at 05:03:35 PM PST

	The article had me going for a while. My eyes bulged with horror at the stupidity of my fellow man till they popped out, rolled down my cheeks and I saw myself. Keep up the good work. (My first visit...and not the last.)

	New Labour Bandwagoneering (none / 0) (#30)
	by nobbystyles on Mon Jul 30th, 2001 at 02:51:28 AM PST

	Unsuprisingly the ever admirable twats running our country after seeing which way the wind was blowing have decided to weigh on the side of people who didn't get it. This is despite not actually seeing this country. I hope Channel 4 sticks to it's guns and sees off this cahllenge from the gutter press aided by politicians who should know better. In fact the over reaction by these groups merely shows that Morris' satire was spot on.

	Exactly (none / 0) (#31)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jul 30th, 2001 at 04:01:37 AM PST

	I find it particularly amusing that Home Secretary, David Blunkett has condemned the programme considering that everyone knows that he never even saw the programme. It is absolutely ridiculous for a blind man to voice any opinion on a TV programme such as this, in which the visual element was so important to the satire. As you say, it's typical New Labour bollocks again.

	Exactly - well Exactly but not quite (none / 0) (#34)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jul 31st, 2001 at 03:04:19 PM PST

	I disagree with this statement. If you actually listen to some of the things that morris was saying, it didn't matter what you were looking at. In the show, he has a sentence that he wants people to read out loud.. "I am a paedophile and I would like you to let me have sex with this 3 year old girl now that she is 21 years old" This sums up the whole show for me, there is absolutely nothing wrong with having sex with a 21 year old woman. The british media have trained us into thinking that a sentence that contains the words peadophile, girl and sex must be abhorent regardless of the content. It is laughable the reaction that it produces in the slice of life people Morris is trying to get to say the sentence.

	in case anyone missed the show... (none / 0) (#32)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jul 30th, 2001 at 12:07:32 PM PST

	or is, y'know, foreign, it's divx'd here

	Lines of human morality (none / 0) (#35)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jul 31st, 2001 at 10:53:04 PM PST

	Regardless the intention a person has towards a specific goal, if, in attaining that goal, certain wrongs are committed, then the entire goal or the result thereof is, in fact, wrong. Much as the truth tables show in us in logic. If part of a statement is false then in truth tables the entire statment is false. Remember those true and false tests taken as a child? Consider simpmly that Chris' goal was to expose paedophilia as a curse on humanity. Then goes on to demonstrate by showing countless hours of children being raped. Put that logic in perspective. Perhaps I'll make a film of countless hours of raping women to expose the horror. Or maybe I'll film countless hours of terrorist attacks including torture, rape, and bombing. But what good documentary would expose anything without a bit of the "realism" in it? Even if that "realism" is used in humour. To display sexual activity among children, much as the film in America called "Kids" has done, no more exposes the truth than Chris having portrayed the supposed "humour" with Brass Eye. Actually, I can't imagine why anyone would feel that "art", "free speech", "satire", and sensitive social issues would be considered good in anyway. Seriously, speaking, there are blurred lines of human morality in every walk of society. To blur them more lessens the impact of punishment for wrong doings because people will begin, over time, to feel they did nothing wrong. Artistic expression is no more expemt from liability of morality than the human is of liability of actually commiting the crimes depicted by artists. If an artist displays an image of a thief stealing the crown jewels many people would simply ignore it's message. If an artist or satirist writes or displays images of a woman being beaten or raped many will be outaged but call it "art". Even when a man urinated on a crucifix and called it art, people ignored. When an artist bled his girlfriend to death using her blood to depict her death to demonstrate the realism, people ignored. In fact, how many of you even know about that? And I know, without doubt, that many of you will ignore and perhaps even flame my comments, saying I'm yet another misguided, misunderstanding fool, who obviously has no clue what satire or art truely means. Then I leave you with the image of your child mentally and physically ruined by another person who decided your child was fit for sexual pleasure. I feel justified in printing this by YOUR rules on humour, satire, art, freedom of press, and freedom of speech. But then you may not even be affected by that because you thought what Chris did was not just forgivable but even LAUGHABLE! Literally. I pity you and the day you have to explain to your child that the funny things Chris did on TV is acceptable because it's really only exposing the evils of our biased media press and, while his or her wounds are legitmate, he or she should not be offened by the satirical remarks. Children only know what we teach them at first. And if we confuse them now, then the human morality will be forever lost. Just so you know, I hold no specific religious beliefs other than Toaism (and not entirely) so I'm not pushing Judeo-Christian ethics. Merely, common sense behaviour among humans.

	Toaism?? (none / 0) (#36)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Aug 1st, 2001 at 11:31:11 AM PST

	Toaism?? What's that, worship of toes?

	Truth Tables (none / 0) (#38)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Aug 4th, 2001 at 02:42:55 PM PST

	Dude, check this out!!! Let's see what (A or B) evaluates to, shall we? A B (A or B) T T T T F T F T T F F F Shocking! Even in two cases where part of the statement is false, the entire thing still is true! Somebody call the president!

	Spot on! Well done! (none / 0) (#46)
	by bailey on Tue May 14th, 2002 at 05:07:37 PM PST

	At last, someone on this subject that has a sound basis in knowing what is acceptable or not. You were spot on in all your arguments, which leads me to believe you have first hand experience. I really hope not. I would much rather hope that your are just a moral person.

	All the above (none / 0) (#37)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Aug 2nd, 2001 at 10:45:13 AM PST

	Actually, the thing I found offensive about Brasseye was that it wasn't as funny as it could have been. Chris Morris has produced some very good work in the past, some of which far surpasses the Brasseye Special. Bits of the Special were laugh-out-loud hilarious, but I found bits of it to be there just to stretch the show to 25 minutes. However, having seen the programme, I am obviously now a paedophile and my opinion should therefore not count.

	'vigilantes' (none / 0) (#41)
	by Nobody on Mon Aug 6th, 2001 at 11:33:22 AM PST

	I think it is great to see fun poked at the self-righteous 'vigilantes' who jump on the anti-paedophile bandwagon. One particular image from the News At Ten (from several months ago) sticks in my head, which for me summarises your average vigilante. A group of middle-aged women are standing in the street outside the house of a suspected paedophile, conducting a small-scale riot. The funniest moment was where one of them called his house with her cellular phone, shouted 'paedophile' then hung up. Nuff said. These people remind me of homophobes at school who slagged off gays, not because they actually hated them, but because they didn't know anything about them. It was a membership thing - all about being 'cool' or being part of something - and making a point that they were not gay themselves. I'll bet these vigilantes know very little about the psychology or motives of a paedophile, and yet they think they have the right to judge them. (From what I've read, a lot of paedophiles are more 'sick' than 'evil', compared with say your average murderer.) Many paedophiles need help, not judgment. Oops, how uncool of me to say something remotely sympathetic about paedophiles...

	Ahh! People like you scare me! (none / 0) (#47)
	by bailey on Tue May 14th, 2002 at 05:28:02 PM PST

	You're right about the vigilanties. And wrong about everything else. What on earth does not knowing their motives have to do with it? Is it a case of: "Why did you rape that four year old?" "Well, I have issues." Knowing their motives isn't going to get Sarah Payne back, isn't going to give that four-year old her childhood back. Knowing their motives isn't going to help re-habilitate these people or stop others from going the same way. Face it dear. They are evil, not sick, evil. Finding out whether they have "Issues" is pointless. A history of being abused does not make that person an abuser. I have first hand knowledge of that, so don't disagree with me. A sick, sick, mind makes a person an abuser. And the only cure for a sick mind is indefinite incarceration. Most known peodophiles have offended time and again. Why on earth are they let go after the first time? You remind me of that lady Francis Crook, who always said Rapists were "just angry". HA! Lock her in a room with four rapists and then see how "angry" she thinks they are! Don't feel sympathy for people who take a baby girl and rape it because they believe it will cure them of Aids. Feel angry. Feel sick. But don't feel sympathy. Education is what these people need, not sympathy. (Although I fail to see how anyone with an IQ of over 1% could possible believe having sex with a virgin will sure Aids. It's not education that man needed. Unless it's the type given in the "south".) The only cure for people like this is to take them away from anywhere they could have contact with children. Keep a better eye on them in prison and don't keep them segregated in prisons. Let the other prisoners get hold of them. Maybe then they might understand a little of the suffering they have inflicted. Your comments offended me deeply. You obviously have no idea how child abuse can affect people. I just hope you never do.

	Trainspotting does not glorify heroin use (none / 0) (#42)
	by botono9 on Wed Aug 22nd, 2001 at 10:51:34 AM PST

	Which part of Trainspotting do you think most "glorified" heroin use: One user waking up in his own shit One user's baby dying from neglect Hallucinations about swimming into disgusting toilets after opium suppositories Hallucinations of dead baby crawling on ceiling during withdrawal

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.