It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sex with Animals OK in UK

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2005 @ 06:46 AM
link   
Ya' know .. there shouldn't even be a question to as if
televising this stuff is right or wrong. Human sex with
animals is sick. It's disease ridden. It's cruel to the
animals. The people need MAJOR mental health help.

Raping kids, raping old people in nursing homes,
raping animals ... this world is sick.

media.guardian.co.uk...

Excerpt -

Ofcom says OK to sex with animals

John Plunkett
Wednesday May 25, 2005
Guardian.co.uk

Clean-up TV campaigners seeking succour in Ofcom's new broadcasting
rules suffered an immediate blow today when the regulator gave the
all-clear to programmes about "sex with animals".

The comments by Richard Hooper, the Ofcom deputy chairman, came at
the unveiling of its long-awaited new broadcasting code and will have
had the regulator's spin doctors holding their heads in their hands.

Although Mr Hooper was at pains to point out that the new regulations
will not give carte blanche to broadcasters, he said certain offensive
material would be OK as long as it was shown at the right time and
with suitable warnings.

"[What about] a programme about sex with animals? Yes, it's potentially
possible. It all comes down to context," he said.

More interesting reading at the site -
media.guardian.co.uk...



[edit on 5/26/2005 by FlyersFan]




posted on May, 26 2005 @ 06:58 AM
link   
Sorry, I didn't bother to click on the links or thoroughly read the post. But the title said enough.......

Sick, Sick, Sick!



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 07:00 AM
link   
Lol!

I love the part where it says "viewing could encourage copy cat behaviour", lol, yea right...

I think it may be a good programme to watch. It may give some insight as to why some people are attracted to animals. Can't say I have every fancied a fling with a beast, but some obviously do.



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 07:07 AM
link   
That Animal Passions programme was on a year or so ago I think. Didn't see it myself (not for any particular reason), but some friends did and parents and so on. Nobody seemed offended by it, in fact pretty much everyone was bemused by the bizarreness of the whole thing.

Wow, 75 complaints eh? I wonder if that's more or less than the number of people who complained a couple of weeks ago about their children being scared by a Doctor Who episode?



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 07:12 AM
link   
So the UK is the bible belt of Europe?



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by CyberKat
Sorry, I didn't bother to click on the links or thoroughly read the post. But the title said enough.......

Sick, Sick, Sick!


Yes...all us people in the UK like to have sex with animals, at least thats what you'll believe if you only read the title of this thread.

CyberKat why bother posting a reply if you have no idea what the thread is actually about?

This is to do with regulations which allows the likes of documentary film makers to produce pieces of work that deal with highly controversial subject matters, it is not an adjustment in legislation so that every Tom, Dick and Lassie can have sex with each other.

Well done Flyersfan for misrepresenting the story to attract more people to your thread.



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 07:40 AM
link   
What's the big deal? Hell sexual immorality is being promoted by the tulipwalker mentality.

You can't have it both ways.....



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
What's the big deal? Hell sexual immorality is being promoted by the tulipwalker mentality.

You can't have it both ways.....


Edsinger could you elaborate on the term "Tulipwalker"?

It's a term I have not heard of.

I did a google on the term and amazingly enough it found 2 occurances, both of which were threads on ATS which you had posted to. Obviously the one in this thread hasn't quite made it to the search engines as yet.



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Koka

Originally posted by edsinger
What's the big deal? Hell sexual immorality is being promoted by the tulipwalker mentality.

You can't have it both ways.....


Edsinger could you elaborate on the term "Tulipwalker"?

It's a term I have not heard of.

I did a google on the term and amazingly enough it found 2 occurances, both of which were threads on ATS which you had posted to. Obviously the one in this thread hasn't quite made it to the search engines as yet.


Sure - Go here......it will explain it...

Turd-blossom, insult or badge of honor?



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
What's the big deal? Hell sexual immorality is being promoted by the tulipwalker mentality.

You can't have it both ways.....


Promoted by tulipwalkers and practiced by conservatives.

www.putfile.com...

Republican_Values



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Koka
Originally posted by CyberKat
Sorry, I didn't bother to click on the links or thoroughly read the post. But the title said enough.......

Sick, Sick, Sick!



Yes...all us people in the UK like to have sex with animals, at least thats what you'll believe if you only read the title of this thread.

CyberKat why bother posting a reply if you have no idea what the thread is actually about?


Why? Because for one thing, I didn't say that I had no idea what the thread was actually about. I said that I didn't read it thoroughly. Now, to your credit, I was not completely accurate when I said that, "The title said enough" because I did skim through and read enough of the post to get the jist of it. Even so, and I'm sorry if you don't like it, but I, as well as many of you also, have certain pet peeves, and that particular subject absolutely repulses me, and I was simply repulsed by the entire concept.

I was simply expressing my personal feelings on the subject in general. No offense was meant to any particular party.

Now, I am 100% in support of the 1st Ammendment, freedom of speach, freedom of the press, etc... I just don't have to personally approve of every single thing that is written or said. And I don't mean this in a derogatory way to Flyersfan, as Flyersfan was simply posting about something that was in the media.



[edit on 5/26/2005 by CyberKat]



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Cybercat nobody is asking you to agree with beastiality, and as you pointed out to my credit it was you that said "Sorry, I didn't bother to click on the links or thoroughly read the post. But the title said enough....... "

Now the title implies that the UK has legalised beastiality, which is a complete misrepresentation of the story given within the links.

If you conclude your statement with "But the title said enough......" this would imply that you actually believe the title.

I know you mean't nothing by it, but I believe Flyersfan has quite knowingly posted information they know to be false, but thats my interpretation, which counts for very little, as I am not a mod.

Peace



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Koka
Well done Flyersfan for misrepresenting the story
to attract more people to your thread.


Silly. :shk: I didn't pick the title.

The title of this thread is as close to the original title
of the story as it can be. It is done that way here so
as to cut down on duplicate threads. If I had made
up a title 'off the cuff' then there could be others
posting the same subject and not knowing they did
so because I didn't use as much of the original
article title as I could.



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Koka
I believe Flyersfan has quite knowingly posted information they know to be false, but thats my interpretation, which counts for very little, as I am not a mod.


First off - proper English - you wouldn't use 'information they know'
when talking about ONE person. It would be 'informaton she knows'.

:shk: Oh brother. Getting a little NATIONALISTIC are you?
Something you accuse Americans of being ... :shk:

No Koka .. no false information here. And your accusation is
pathetic. You don't know me and I guess you don't know
how things are done around here. The TITLE of the article
isn't my title. It was taken from the original piece so as to
be sure not to have duplicates. There is just so much room
in a title. It was as close to the original piece as I could get.

And second. If you think there is false information in the
article then it's your job to DEBUNK the information in the article
and not to accuse me of providing false information. I posted
what was in the news from The Guardian in the UK and provided
my opinion of the subject.

It isn't my job to present both sides of the issue. I posted the
news article and gave my opinion that I believe sex with animals
is sick and that it shouldn't even be an issue as to whether it
could be shown on tv or not. It's sick and abusive to the animals
as well as the people. Providing my opinion isn't providing false
information. :shk:

If you think the information about OfComs broadcasting rules is
in error ... post the information here and tell The Guardian about
it. But DO NOT accuse me of making up false OfCom information.
I never heard of them before this morning and couldn't possibly
have an agenda against them. :shk:



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Yes, you did choose the title, and adjusted it for impact and reaction.

The original title of the article was "Ofcom says OK to sex with animals" - Ofcom being a known, certainly in the UK, regulartory body.

In all honetsy, the original title is a little sensationalist, but as it mentions Ofcom in the title you know its a change to their regulations they are actually referring to.

Not to worry Flyersfan, you supplied links to the original article, you can't be held responsible for those people who can't be bothered to follow them.

PEACE

p.s. I chose the term "they" as I was unable to discern your gender, does not appear in your profile, so I chose both, hence "they"...... C- must try harder.

[edit on 26-5-2005 by Koka]



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Koka
Yes, you did choose the title, and adjusted it for impact and reaction.

No. I didn't. I 'adjusted' for nothing. I put the title in as best as I
could to match the original title and article so that others wouldn't
repeat it. You are projecting onto my actions things that simply
are not there and that are unflattering.

I absolutely had no agenda or intentions for 'impact and reaction.'

But whatever .... I have other things to do than defend my
INNOCENT intentions. Shopping, school stuff, swim team practice
for my daughter. Whatever. Read the article or ignore it.
I don't care. It's still SICK to put humans and animals on TV
in sexual situations. Buh-bye.



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Take your bickering to u2us and get back on topic.



posted on May, 27 2005 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
Take your bickering to u2us and get back on topic.


I will concede to Flyersfan that maybe she did not intend to misrepresent, but will ask that in future, if the story involves an official body that may not be recognised outside of the readers country, she have more confidence in the readers ability to use google, or simply explain it in the body of the post.

As I said earlier, this was my interpretation of what the heading mean't or inferred, which wasn't helped by CyberKat claiming that the headline said it all.

I apologise for hijacking this thread.

As for the subject in general, beastiality, to me goes beyond a fetish, it's perverse and cruel, but people do it, and understanding why people like to have sexual relations with animals maybe of interest to many a psychologist but a documentary on the matter shows signs that a channel is desperate to get viewers.

So in short Flyersfan, I agree with you.

Note for diary: Today I made a new friend her name is Flyersfan...


p.s. cmdrkeenkid, congratulations on your hollow victory last week.

[edit on 27-5-2005 by Koka]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join