Tuesday, March 15, 2005

Sex and violence threat of 24hr TV

Sex, swearing and violence are increasingly being shown on TV before the watershed because of pressure to fill 24 hour schedules, critics said yesterday...who are these critics anyway? How much do they get paid to criticize?

An official report found that programmes first shown after the 9pm watershed are often repeated uncensored during the day when children are watching.

One of three complaints uphelp by regulator Ofcom was about the Big Brother panto, full of swearing, which was repeated at 10:55am on Channel 4 during the school Christmas holidays. Controllers apologised after the first commercial break...nice to know they care... and replaced it with an alternative cleaned up version which should have been shown...the only way to clean up Big Brother is to remove the sound and the video, that comment is sure to make me unpopular.

The same network's digital channel E4 showed an edition of Faking It at 3pm which included the f-word...'fudge' for those of you who still haven't figured it out... at least five times. Again, the wrong tape was used by mistake...obviously the guy responsible for the Channel 4 mix-up was moved to E4

The digital channel Bravo also showed Street Crime UK twice during the day though it contained swearing...what about the violence?... A spokesman for watchdog group Mediawatch said last night: 'The watershed is constantly being undermined'...it's nice to know someone is being paid to point out the bleeding obvious

'Having programmes on 24 hours a day, seven days a week, is changing the ground rules with no corresponding response from regulators'...ah there's more from our overpaid friend, still rather..obvious... It said...I thought the spokesman was a person, not an object... the only solution was for Ofcom to come down hard on all broadcasters who showed unsuitable material during the day. But Ofcom said 'There are more TV channels so there may be an impression it is happening more'...bring on the maths guys

Monday, March 14, 2005

'Nice guy' kills seven at church

Already we can clearly see he's not a 'nice guy'...A gunman who massacred seven worshippers at a US church service before killing himself was last night described by a neighbour as 'the nicest, quietest guy in the world'...proof that it's always the quiet ones we have to keep an eye on... The dead were aged from 15 to 72. Four others were in a serious condition in hospital..where they should be. Not that they deserve to be there, but that's where sick people should be in order to get better... The killer, Terry Ratzmann, was described as an 'average Joe'...does this mean we're all killers?...who appeared depressed.

The 44 year old even stopped to reload during the carnage at the Living Church of God...what else was he supposed to do, start spitting on people? Although I guess that would have been preferred, and it's alse ever so slightly more legal... A survivor told how she saw a family mown down. 'It was mayhem'...I don't think it could have been much else...'I dived under a chair. The man who was sitting on it died. Why am I still alive?'...never a good question to ask...

The rampage happened on Saturday, shortly after the evangelical service began at a hotel in Brookfield, a suburb of Milwaukee, Wisconsin...I thought it was at a church? I don't like these inconsistencies!

Ratzmann's body was found in the room with those of boys aged 15 and 17, a woman of 55 and a man of 72...that's a bad thing...

Three men aged between 44 and 58 died in hospital.

Neighbours said eco-friendly Ratzmann was an avid gardener...so that makes it ok?...who built his own greenhouse and gave vegetables to friends...I could make a very sick joke right about now, but this article analysis is already in bad taste.

Ratzmann who lived with his mother and sister, was so gentle he couldn't hurt an animal...how wrong could his neighbours be..., they added. When chipmunks got into his garden, he set traps to catch them...this sounds sinister...but he would then set them free elsewhere...how disappointing.