RE: Ofcom stuff
Tonywauk, do you think I'm right in interpreting the Comms Act and Ofcom's Code to mean the provision of 'adequate protection to the public from offensive and harmful material' belongs with the broadcaster? I can see you might have had Talksport release Mr Gaunt sooner in order to provide this protection and, obviously, this highlights who's really responsible for the broadcast of that 'extremely offensive material' (as described by Sir Anthony May).
The thing I don't get about all this is what right does Mr Stark believe he has discriminating against smokers? My mom is 79. She grew up in a home with two smoking parents. She has never smoked in her life. Her father died aged 76 from lung cancer after qutting smoking at 65 (he also worked as a bricklayer most of his life and was frequently exposed to cement dust). Her mother quit smoking in her mid 70s and died aged 82 from a massive stroke while in a home for the elderly suffering from progressive dementia.
Now may be my family is unique - in a sense it is - but, surely we're not so different we're a different species? Is there anything truly strange or odd about the diseases and ages my grandparents passed away? My father's side lived to ripe old ages too. My dad however died aged 52 from his 4th or 5th heart attack and he smoked about 40 cigs a day. However, his job ranked as one of those most prone to stress-induced illness and, based on average age, an early death.
From my own experience I can see no evidence that smokers or smoking unduly 'harms those around you'. Anyone may choose to start smoking or not. Every smoker I know, including myself, warns youngsters not to start because it does damage your health and your pocket. Some may heed the warnings, others do not. I know I did not start smoking because my father did. By the time I was old enough to start smoking he had been dead almost 10 years and, as I said, my mother has never smoked. I know, 'cos I was there, that I started smoking in the 6th form common room in some ritualistic 'coming of age' act of 'studenthood'. 'Peer pressure' I feel is too strong a word for it but, conformance and normalisation in order to fit-in with a 'like-minded' group that I wanted to be accepted by played a part. That was my choice, my interpretation, my invention, my excuse to start smoking. All in that group smoked, drank, played with other mind-altering substances. Some people have these inquisitive personality traits - they tend to be the traits of science students, drop outs, drug abusers, alcoholics, risk takers, high rollers, psychotics, neurotics, the stressed, the dispossessed, the under privileged and so forth. There are a cart load of 'reasons' that lead some people into the smoking habit (and worse). At the bottom of this trait however is the simple fact that it is indeed a personality trait - some people are born addicts, indeed, we're predisposed to addiction via an inherant need to find food, water or mommy's milk every day of our lives else face certain death within a matter of days.
Shortly before my grandfather became too ill to speak, he told my mother he'd craved a smoke every day since he'd quit - that was over 10 years locked in a constant battle between his craving and his will power. Oh you could say he should never have started but, as the rest of his family had almost all been carried off by the demon drink, I reckon smoking was the lesser of the common 'evils' he was likely prone to fall victim to. Psychology studies and behavioural science has revealed that around 30% of animals (including humans) have addictive personalities and traits. Whatever this trait exists for, it is inherant and it affects far more people as a percentage of total popuation than homosexuality yet, governments, doctors and so-called health advisors all seem to treat it like a curable disease or, something that can be supressed, over-come, repressed, indeed, it is treated by such 'scientists' in today's society in the same manner as the religious look upon homosexuality.
Taking all the evidence and my personal experience into account, it appears to me that Mr Stark is indeed a Nazi, a health Nazi and an ignorant pig.
I hope this counts as a reasonable argument, indeed, reasonable justification for my comments and, I would suggest, those of Mr Gaunt. I'd like to add Sir Anthony May to the list of ignorant and arrogant sods perverting the course of Justice in our Courts. He has shown little consideration for the law, the science or the rights of those involved when reaching his sweeping conclusions.
The fact is, Ofcom's Code has been in urgent need of Judicial Review since it came into being. And I hope Gaunty forces this to happen if and when his appeal to the Court of Appeal is granted. Whether or not Mr Gaunt is a self-important, opinionated, loud-mouth is I think neither here nor there - and I think even you believe that.
A new dittie: The Buggers 2010 (Ofwatch slight return) http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.ph...#pid556229
(This post was last modified: 26-07-2010 05:33 by IanG.)
|