*fuming*

[GCHQAgent]

I'm a fairly controversial guy... but

W T F

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_734293.html

I think eating dead babies is disgusting and how the hell can C4 get away with broadcasting that??

I can understand how showing an autopsy on TV might be educational, but this?!

[Mojo]

I'm with you on this mate!

sick or what?

just because it's not against any religion or law doesn't mean it's socially acceptable and it certainly doesn't make it art!!

how has this person been allowed to get hold of a still birth anyway? Furthering medical science is one thing, but....

sick sick sick

nuff said

Mojo

[Red]

erm....last tme I checked Cannibalism was still illegal, even if they don't swallow it it would still be classed as cannibalism.

euuuuuuurrrrrghhhhhhhhhhh!

[Monster-Mat]

cannabalism, isnt illegal, no law has ever been passed on it.

its the murder of someone to eat them thats not allowed

[Mojo]

is cannibalism illegal in China though?

[Monster-Mat]

not sure in China......i do know however that,human body parts are sold......including foetus, and used as medicinal products

[GCHQAgent]

Illegal or not I was under the impression that TV broadcasters have an obligation to consider the moral and ethical implications of whatever they intend to broadcast. I also thought that C4 was an informative channel, I don't see how showing someone eating human flesh is informative at all.

I have a feeling the bosses at C4 must be some sort of weirdos who are into body butchering otherwise this would never have been allowed.

I bet none of the bosses at C4 will be willing to take the rap when some psycho watching TV decides its alright to do that and decides to go on an eating spree... if someone does do that I would hope they go after the fool that is responsible for this disgusting broadcast.

[Claire G]

This is horrifically disturbing. What happened to Rest In Peace? Whether it's illegal or not, babies/people in general should be afforded dignity in death. I reckon all of those against this type of sensationalist c**p should bombard C4 with their protest. I'm not for sensorship as such, but see absolutely no reason as to why they should show this and publicise the sick individual who claims to be an artist.

***FUMING***

[Mitch]

i was too busy at work to see this but my mom said it was disgusting and one of the worse things she has seen. i dnt understand how someone would get kicks from doin that, c4 should get a bollocking and sure there complaints will be sky high

[Matthew_McNally]

so - C4 cynical marketing strategy works again.

people on a LEXUS forum are talking about channel 4.

how many people watched the program just to see if it was real?

sky high complaints will just ensure that the program gets even better rating when they repeat it

[Zee007]

Words fail me - absolutely disgusted....

[Steve]

so - C4 cynical marketing strategy works again.

people on a LEXUS forum are talking about channel 4.

how many people watched the program just to see if it was real?

sky high complaints will just ensure that the program gets even better rating when they repeat it

bit of a difference between this and big brother.. what happened to the bit in the middle?

[GCHQAgent]

I think if you're gonna watch something like that then you might as well be commiting the act. C4 may get good ratings and even if the regulator (is it ITC?) comes down on them for this what will happen... the damage will be done, profits will be made and you can guarantee the outcome will be a slap on the wrist as usual.

If I were in charge I'd throw the book at C4 and call them paedophiles because eating of flesh can be considered a sexual act (a more common form of this is a love bite or hickey) but nonetheless, eating flesh could be an act with sexual intent. Put that together with the fact that we're talking about a baby (a minor) we have C4 broadcasting paedophilic material.

Yes it is stretching it just slightly but the fact is with a decent legal team (don't laugh.. I know the CPS are a joke) then C4 and any other broadcaster thinking to get some quick ratings could be taught a lesson it would never forget.

[Matthew_McNally]

I think if you're gonna watch something like that then you might as well be commiting the act.

sorry GCHQ - I didn't watch it, nor was I in anyway condoning it - was just observing that C4 are probably hoping for front page furore in all the press tomorrow.

"theres no such thing as bad publicity"

and this way - the adverts are free

[GCHQAgent]

sorry GCHQ - I didn't watch it, nor was I in anyway condoning it - was just observing that C4 are probably hoping for front page furore in all the press tomorrow.

No no, I wasn't pointing the finger at you. I meant that you are correct, people will watch it just to see if it is real but I feel that they will be as guilty as the person commiting the act.

We live in a free soceity and that is a good thing but as a result we're bombarded with things we may not like. Because we're free to do as we choose we must be responsible for what we DO decide to do. No one forces you to watch a particular broadcast (I won't digify it by calling it a documentary) so therefore what you watch you do so by your own choosing, by a conscious decision. I hope what I said makes some sense to someone <g>

Its like if someone was being raped and you decided to sit down and watch then you would be no different to the rapist.

[javadude]

under the impression that TV broadcasters have an obligation to consider the moral and ethical implications of whatever they intend to broadcast.

Channel 4 appear to be exempt.

As for the ITC - if they let companies show such things then there really is no point to their existence.

http://www.itc.org.uk/how_can_we_help/prog...t_programme.asp

[Claire G]

I didn't watch it as I didn't want to be even a minor participant or contribute to their ratings. Yes, we're all talking about it but I believe there is such a thing as bad publicity and we should not only be complaining to C4 and the ITC but also be voting with our fingers and not hitting the C4 buttons on our remote controls.

A vast over reaction? Maybe, but I'm sure the majority of people with or without kids understand. Sadly though this furore will probably be forgotten and it'll be profits and business as usual for C4 executives

[Dobbin]

Whilst I wholeheartedly agree that it was disgusting and am distressed by the fact that this sort of thing happens in the world, (these so called artists get away with too much under the "it's art" banner), I am glad that we live in a country where we can broadcast anything and not be subjected to censorship.

Be your own censor because you won't like it when it's done for you.

[Claire G]

http://www.itc.org.uk/how_can_we_help/prog...t_programme.asp

Positive or negative, you may wish to register your views direct with C4 too:

http://www.channel4.com/thinktv/

Dobbin, I agree with you to a point and I have never been one for censorship, but believe that this appears to be totally sensationalist and unnecessary. As my own censor I choose not to watch Snuff videos for example, but should we be given the option to view on mainstream TV.

Not having a go at you at all mate, I think we need different views and I know you aren't 'for' this type of thing, just for the right to view it should we choose to.

In my humble opinion, TV programmes should either inform or entertain.

[vince-com]

After seeing yesterday at night on the echographie for the first time our futur baby, imagine a minute what I'm thinking of that kind of artist !!!!!

It's definitly not art, and surely Trash TV looking for hard emotive pictures, some dirty pictures to show up in a clean house to horrify people.

Even it's not like artists usually named an art performance

I'm definitly not for censure, assuming that people use to think before showing a program…Apparently it's not the way of thinking of C4.

We're free to see it or not, assuming that we can make the difference, but what will think of it a pedofil or any other degenerate mind?

[Dobbin]

Dobbin, I agree with you to a point and I have never been one for censorship, but believe that this appears to be totally sensationalist and unnecessary. As my own censor I choose not to watch Snuff videos for example, but should we be given the option to view on mainstream TV.

Clare, at the risk of sounding like a complete ***** - I think that if a broadcaster has the stupidity to try and show something like that then they should be allowed to go for it. Snuff videos are an extreme example because they are illegal, but I take your point.

What we musn't forget is that these commercial channels can only survive if they sell advertising space and who would want to have their advert placed in a slot during something so controversial - they wouldn't want the association.

We have a watershed (such that it is) and programmes that are broadcast after this time could theoretically contain all sorts of undesirable things, but those watching should be old enough to make up their mind whether they want to see it or not.

The sad truth is that there are people out there who want to watch this sort of thing (there are even sadder people who are making it) - as long as there is an audience the programmes will get broadcast.

I, for one, am glad that this is the case. I'm well aware that some material might offend some, but entertain others and I can understand why people get upset that it is being broadcast into their homes - however, by virtue of the fact that you are on this forum means that you are accessing the medium that has the most outrageous material in the world, the internet.

If you are going to complain about an explicit programme on TV why aren't you all complaining about the material on the net that is seriously more offensive. Or maybe you choose to exercise self censorship and just accept that it is there but doesn't have to be viewed.

You got me started, but I think I've managed to stop now....phew

[GCHQAgent]

If you are going to complain about an explicit programme on TV why aren't you all complaining about the material on the net that is seriously more offensive. Or maybe you choose to exercise self censorship and just accept that it is there but doesn't have to be viewed.

There is a big difference between something on the net and something on terrestrial TV. That difference is things on TV are pushed to you to a certain extent, sure you can change the channel but if you happen to be tuned into C4 you'll receive quite a shock. On the Internet you have to go and look for whatever you want to see. If I go to Yahoo I expect to see a portal, I don't expect to see something lude. In the same way, if I turn to C4 I expect to see real documentaries, news, normal boring C4 stuff, not dead babies being eaten.

Surely if the ITC outright blocked that particular broadcast then it wouldn't be necessarily be censorship? If someone wants to see dead babies being eaten I'm sure they can go buy it on video, see it on some obscure satellite or cable channel or watch it on the internet but who has the right to PUSH it into my face onto my TV?

[Andy.thomas]

GCHQ - with you all the way m8! C4 have got away with murder for donkeys with this sort of thing. I am a good friend of a very wealthy businessman - his favourite line is all publicity is good publicity.

I know it not anywhere similar to this but an example, (he's a much nicer man than C4 me thinks!)

Bought a Grade B/2 (not up to speed on that stuff) listed building, ripped out the insides turned into a really nice restaurant. Got biggest fine ever made loads of local press the restaurant was packed for ever more! Worth the fine, yeah it cost him about the same as he was willing to spend on advertising!

Word of mouth / curiosity - strongest form of advertising in the world - it human nature!

[GCHQAgent]

GCHQ - with you all the way m8! C4 have got away with murder for donkeys with this sort of thing. I am a good friend of a very wealthy businessman - his favourite line is all publicity is good publicity.

I know it not anywhere similar to this but an example, (he's a much nicer man than C4 me thinks!)

Bought a Grade B/2 (not up to speed on that stuff) listed building, ripped out the insides turned into a really nice restaurant. Got biggest fine ever made loads of local press the restaurant was packed for ever more! Worth the fine, yeah it cost him about the same as he was willing to spend on advertising!

Word of mouth / curiosity - strongest form of advertising in the world - it human nature!

Andy, it is unfortunate that all publicity is good publicity. My parents once had a brawl by two lesbian police officers in one of their restaurants and a Sun reporter happened to be eating there at the time.

Needless to say, for weeks after there were people coming in and asking 'is this the place where the lesbos were fightin?''

So I presume business went up but I don't think the publicity did much good for the police <G>... perhaps publicity is a double edged sword.

[Claire G]

Hi Dobbin,

Everyone has a right to their opinion, and life would be boring if we all agreed all the time. :)

It's very rare that I post personal opinions here, but this is something I feel very strongly about. Good to cross blades with you S'ah !

Claire

(I still think C4 are @*^%#!!$ for broadcasting that ;) )