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.

 

Chav-tastic TV, complaints hit record levels over celebrity 'Big Brother'

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Forget Mary Whitehouse, forget claims about too much sex or violence or bad language; the record for the number of complaints about a British TV show is all over bullying and alledged racism.

Channel 4's 'Big Brother' show has attracted this record number of complaints as Shilpa Shetty (a 'Bolly-wood' megastar) has been seen to suffer at the hands of 3 other contestants in the so-called 'reality TV' program.


Ofcom said it had received about 19,300 complaints about Celebrity Big Brother - a record for a television broadcast.


news.bbc.co.uk...

- The row has even reached India (where PM-in-waiting Gordon Brown is visiting).


The alleged racism experienced by Bollywood actress Shilpa Shetty on the Big Brother reality TV show in the UK has not gone unnoticed in India.

The issue has attracted considerable press coverage and comment, even though the programme is not shown in India.


news.bbc.co.uk...

- Personally I see this as crass ignorance and rampant jealousy which has led to bullying.
Chav TV gone mad.

Shilpa Shetty is not only absolutely beautiful but clearly educated and well mannered......in stark contrast to the 3 other females doing the bullying (especially the educated part).

The other 3 are
Jade Goody who was a previous 'ordinary' Big Brother contestant whos' stunning degree of general educational ignorance led to a kind of public sympathy which launched here 'career' as a D list celebrity.

Danielle Lloyd, a former 'Miss Britain' stripped of the title after claims of fraud.
Besides getting her breasts out in lads mags she appears to have very very little else to offer besides her unpleasant personality.

Jo O'Meara, former singer with 'band' Sclub7, another who appears to offer little beyond fading looks and another unpleasant personality.


Following a discussion the group had with Shetty about how long it took to cook a chicken, Goody, O'Meara and Lloyd decided she had made them all ill.

"No wonder I keep getting the s***s," commented O'Meara.

Others complained that Shetty had touched housemates' food with her hands after she picked up morsels from people's plates.

Lloyd said: "You don't know where those hands have been."

Following another meal, Shetty poured left-over chicken soup down the Big Brother toilet - much to the disgust of the others, who felt chicken bones could cause a blockage.

"Why didn't it just go down the sink?" asked O'Meara. "She grates me so badly when she does things like that. What a stupid thing to do."

Tweedy suggested Shetty should pick the bones out with her teeth, receiving the reply: "There's a lot more I want to do with my teeth."

Bad atmosphere

During a separate conversation, while Shetty was applying facial hair bleach, Lloyd asked whether the Bollywood star had stubble.

Later, Goody offered the opinion that skin lightening is common in India, where paler skin is considered desirable.

"She's a dog," said Lloyd.

Some fans have claimed Tweedy referred to Shetty using a four-letter racial insult, which was bleeped out. However, Channel 4 has denied the word bleeped out was a racist term.

Shetty has been reduced to tears several times by the bad atmosphere.

news.bbc.co.uk...



[edit on 17-1-2007 by sminkeypinkey]

mod edit: changed to external quote tags
Quote Reference (review link)



[edit on 18-1-2007 by UK Wizard]




posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 01:50 PM
link   


Personally I see this as crass ignorance and rampant jealousy which has led to bullying.


Couldn't agree more.



Viewers unhappy at alleged racist content on Celebrity Big Brother should switch off their TVs, Conservative leader David Cameron has said.
Answering questions sent in to the BBC he said there was "a great regulator called the off button", adding that people had to "take responsibility".


from BBC Politics

Common sense suggestion, i'd say.



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 02:57 AM
link   
Hmmmm I think the off button argument is a little disingenious in this instance. This isn't simply about disaproving of a little sex and violence spun out to give some flagging drama a little more interest, these are real people being, for want of a better word brutalised, in the name of entertainment. I thought former celeb big brother contestants the monstrous Pete Burns and the odious George Galloway were vile enough but this is plumbing new depths. What makes this worse is that while Burns and Galloway were intelligent enough to at least suspect how they would be coming across to the veiwers these three dumbelles haven't seemed to grasp that and in my opinion are being exploited by CH4 and Endemol in the name of ratings. It doesn't excuse what they did but the producers should have stepped in far sooner.

Cameron, as usual, exploits that groove in his arse for further fence sitting. Does this man have one firm opinion about anything?



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 06:51 AM
link   
I think that a lot of people are perceiving entirely the wrong problem with this matter.

Let's face it, Big Brother is an exercise which is specifically designed to generate entertainment by promoting conflict between individuals whether they be "celebrities" or not. It is entirely disingenuous for viewers to be complaing about rudeness, bullying, swearing or aggressive behaviour in the house. That is exactly what the huge majority tuned in for as demonstrated by the surge in ratings since this blew up and no one going into the house could conceivably be so naive and idiotic as to be unaware of the potential consequences of doing so.

I will come clean at this stage and say that I have only seen the clips of the arguments shown on news programmes as I will not watch the damned thing but to date I have not seen or heard anything that was overtly racist. It MAY be that some of the comments and opinions were promoted by racist beliefs and attitudes but there is no evidence of this. The simple fact that a white person shouts at a black person does not mean it is racist.

Like I say, I haven't watched the whole affair, (and don't intend to), so if anyone has evidence of a genuine racist remark I'd be pleased to see it and be persuaded otherwise.

The real problem is that not only do our media corporations think that this peurile tosh is worth of hundreds of hours of television time including goodness knows how much at prime time but many millions of viewers seem to agree with them.

About that we should worry.



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by timeless test
I think that a lot of people are perceiving entirely the wrong problem with this matter.

Let's face it, Big Brother is an exercise which is specifically designed to generate entertainment by promoting conflict between individuals whether they be "celebrities" or not. It is entirely disingenuous for viewers to be complaing about rudeness, bullying, swearing or aggressive behaviour in the house. That is exactly what the huge majority tuned in for as demonstrated by the surge in ratings since this blew up and no one going into the house could conceivably be so naive and idiotic as to be unaware of the potential consequences of doing so.

I will come clean at this stage and say that I have only seen the clips of the arguments shown on news programmes as I will not watch the damned thing but to date I have not seen or heard anything that was overtly racist. It MAY be that some of the comments and opinions were promoted by racist beliefs and attitudes but there is no evidence of this. The simple fact that a white person shouts at a black person does not mean it is racist.

Like I say, I haven't watched the whole affair, (and don't intend to), so if anyone has evidence of a genuine racist remark I'd be pleased to see it and be persuaded otherwise.

The real problem is that not only do our media corporations think that this peurile tosh is worth of hundreds of hours of television time including goodness knows how much at prime time but many millions of viewers seem to agree with them.

About that we should worry.


We will have to agree to disagree. No matter how many people tune in for the conflict, no matter how clued up the contestants are about what the programme is trying to promote in the name of ratings I think there is still some kind of ethical or moral guidelines that should be in place and enforced. Watching Leo Sayer strop out because he has to wash his own undies is one thing, blatant bullying and intimidation, and allowing it to appeal to the lowest common denominator, is wrong.



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 01:43 AM
link   
Here's a video showing some sort of arguement between the people invovled.

www.youtube.com...

Odd state of affairs when the non-native english speaker is the more intelligible one.

This shows a fight over chicken broth cubes:
www.youtube.com...

I think it is clear, by the end, that it really does come down to manners.
This shows that too:
www.youtube.com...

This seems racist, maybe not violent and raging, but still:
www.youtube.com...

A couple of peopel keep seeming to call her 'princess' all the time, but not really in a nice way.

This seems to show that there's a different standard being applied
www.youtube.com...



timesless test
It is entirely disingenuous for viewers to be complaing about rudeness, bullying, swearing or aggressive behaviour in the house

I thought that was the whole idea of these kinds of shows? Sorta like Paris Hilton's "career", we're supposed to hate her.



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

timesless test
It is entirely disingenuous for viewers to be complaing about rudeness, bullying, swearing or aggressive behaviour in the house

I thought that was the whole idea of these kinds of shows?


Ummm, yeah, that is exactly the point I was trying to make. It is quite ridiculous to tune in to a programme whose whole purpose is to promote conflict and aggression for the titilation of the viewers and then phone into complain about the conflict and agression.



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 01:15 PM
link   
What I am saying is that the current reaction IS the reaction that the show is supposed to generate. The people calling in and complaining and publically airing their dissatisfaction with the show and hte people on it are doing precisely what they are supposed to be doing. So it makes perfect sense for them to complain about the show.



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 10:41 AM
link   
I agree that the show is indeed designed to provoke and create friction.

I think it was the obvious ganging up and bullying behaviour that disgusted people just as much as anything.

Even more so than those (debateable) claims of racism ..... which Shilpa Shetty herself has said she did not think really was a case of racism - although it has to be remembered that she has not seen and heard eveything that the other contestants said.

It was interesting that Jade Goody was booted off the show by some margin -

Goody received 82% of the vote after going head-to-head with Shetty in the public eviction on Friday.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Interesting too that the shows sponsors walked
(forcing the producers hand so that they finally became involved and were seen to talk to those involved and responsible?
......which in turn does make the later apologies and 'making up' a little suspect or forced?).

If the saying that art holds up a mirror on reality then TV may have done us as a nation a great service.

A little class and some good manners would go a long way in making the UK a better place.

Without wishing to sound too 'Daily Mail' about it I just hope this loathsome public display of crass ignorance, bullying and ill manners might help spread a fashion for better behaviour a little wider.



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 02:38 AM
link   
Hmmm it's all getting a little bit silly now. Certain sections of the press, while bemoaning the way the media present victimisation and bullying as entertainment and a means to boost ratings-ie make money-completely miss the irony that their very own 'ruination of Jade' campaign is perilously close to what they've been condemning-but it's good copy, it's what people want and it sells newspapers!!!!

The girl has now been brought to task and if pundit predictions are anything to go by will probably suffer far more than she actually deserves. It's a shame if bullying and oppression can only be dealt with by dishing out more of the same to the perpetrators. Anyone here met any Bermondsey girls???? She's actually pretty tame to the ones I used to know. It in no way excuses her but let the punishment fit the crime.

I agree though that this programme has highlighted how a little bit of class and self control look so much more attractive and superior than the 'in touch with my feelings, free rage, chav approach, who'se ideals probably looked a lot better on paper in the 60's than they appear in actuality in 2007.



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by ubermunche Anyone here met any Bermondsey girls?


!?

Wow. Just wow.


I hope you were joking there um.

Are you going to be asking us if we've met any African or Asian people next?

(BTW yes, is the answer.
What of them?
Of those I knew and worked with, for years, 2 were highly educated and one wasn't. and what?)


the 'in touch with my feelings, free rage, chav approach


- You've got to be kidding.

The "chav approach" you've mentioned is the complete opposite of anything remotely like the 'being in touch with ones' feelings' approach.

The whole point of the 'expression' idea is meant to be controlled, productive and positive, to let it out, to see and hear it, to try and understand what it's all about and where it is coming from; it is not and has never been about attacking another person.

The attacking anger and bullying we saw is clearly completely ignorant of and a total denial of any deeper appreciation of where that comes from and so can hardly be called in any way 'in touch' with anything.

.....and since when did 'free rage' come into anything (other than your own imagination)?


who'se ideals probably looked a lot better on paper in the 60's than they appear in actuality in 2007.


- Well I realise you're on a little bash and provoke number here um but you really couldn't be more wrong about what that so-called 60's idea was all about.

.....and it's hardly confined to the 1960's either.


[edit on 21-1-2007 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Do people in the UK have remote controls? Do they have an off switch on their TV's?

If you don't like what you are watching, TURN THE CHANNEL.

The more you complain about something the more attention it gets.



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 10:56 AM
link   
is this a political thread?



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by boyg2004
is this a political thread?



Don't you realize that everything is political? Everything!

From sports to television shows to a local beauty pagent. Everything is political.



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Point taken. So it's ok if I start a thread here about my local football team?



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 11:38 AM
link   

!?

Wow. Just wow. 

I hope you were joking there um.

Are you going to be asking us if we've met any African or Asian people next?

(BTW yes, is the answer.
What of them?
Of those I knew and worked with, for years, 2 were highly educated and one wasn't. and what?)



Errrm…..relax Smikey it was rather tongue in cheek yes, although not completely without a kernal of truth. The point being made is that Jade is a product of her early upbringing and environment (which she herself has alluded to in the past) and from personal experience some…a lot actually of the men and women I knew from the area could be pretty…..forthright and direct and sometimes a touch aggressive in their manner (do I really need to clarify all this yawn!!!) The original point being made is whereas Jade has behaved badly, appallingly even the backlash now is growing disproportionate to her actual crime. She didn’t burn down an orphanage after all. You seem to have missed that bit in your leap for the high horse and accusations of ’Bermondsey-ism. My family come from the area too, so it’s hardly a sweeping attack.


the 'in touch with my feelings, free rage, chav approach

- You've got to be kidding.

The "chav approach" you've mentioned is the complete opposite of anything remotely like the 'being in touch with ones' feelings' approach.

The whole point of the 'expression' idea is meant to be controlled, productive and positive, to let it out, to see and hear it, to try and understand what it's all about and where it is coming from; it is not and has never been about attacking another person.

The attacking anger and bullying we saw is clearly completely ignorant of and a total denial of any deeper appreciation of where that comes from and so can hardly be called in any way 'in touch' with anything.

.....and since when did 'free rage' come into anything (other than your own imagination)?


The chav approach is-unfortunately- the result of promoting liberal ideals -which are in themselves rather laudable-but failing to factor in personal responsibility. It’s taking the ‘live and let live’ liberal attitude, which I’m all for. Then extracting the ‘let live part. This has resulted in lots of ignorant people thinking what they want, or want to do is all that matters regardless of the consequences and misguided people making excuses for them.



- Well I realise you're on a little bash and provoke number here um but you really couldn't be more wrong about what that so-called 60's idea was all about.


You couldn’t be more wrong, it was observation, not provocation in any way shape or form. And accusations like that are a bit rich coming from you Smikey.



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 11:45 AM
link   
I also tried to have a resonable debate with smikey, but he reverted to calling me names after he ran out of counter-arguments.

He called me a 'troll', whatever that means.



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by boyg2004]is this a political thread?


- Are you honestly saying that you can't see that there's been a wider political connection to these events?

Where have you been for the last week?

We have had international reverberations and nation comment on the highest political stage(s).

Is the conduct of our social discourse not relevant to our politics?


Originally posted by ubermunche
Errrm…..relax Smikey


- It's a nice easy Sunday PM and I'm very relaxed. Thank you.


It’s taking the ‘live and let live’ liberal attitude, which I’m all for. Then extracting the ‘let live part. This has resulted in lots of ignorant people thinking what they want, or want to do is all that matters regardless of the consequences and misguided people making excuses for them.


- Well you would say it's down to 'liberal-ism' and I say it's the more recent fashion for 'a blinkered self-interested selfishness'.

You seem to prefer to blame it all on the 1960's 'liberalism' in some way.

I prefer to bring it all a lot more up to date and look to the 1980's - 1990's and the Thatcherite 'there is no such thing as society' conservatism.

That's my observation. I doubt we'll agree.


You couldn’t be more wrong, it was observation, not provocation in any way shape or form.


- I'll take your word for it then.



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 02:14 PM
link   

You seem to prefer to blame it all on the 1960's 'liberalism' in some way.

I prefer to bring it all a lot more up to date and look to the 1980's - 1990's and the Thatcherite 'there is no such thing as society' conservatism.


Who said I blame it ALL on 1960’s liberalism. I’ve already said I think the liberal ideals of the 60’s were laudable, it enables me to live my life as a gay man openly so I‘m hardly opposed to it, ambivalent sometimes though. For the same reason I certainly have little truck with the hardcore values of the Thatcherites with their clause 28 and I’m all right Jack callous disregard for those less fortunate. I do though see that both have their advantages and disadvantages but when both are applied too rigorously without a nod to common sense and balancing social needs against ideologies the link to the prevailing problems we face today, at least to me, are obvious.



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 02:33 PM
link   


quote: Originally posted by boyg2004]is this a political thread?

- Are you honestly saying that you can't see that there's been a wider political connection to these events?

Where have you been for the last week?

We have had international reverberations and nation comment on the highest political stage(s).

Is the conduct of our social discourse not relevant to our politics?


Your point is true, Sminkey. My point is that politicians should not have to intervene in everything that happens on TV. It is not relevant to the running of the country. If there is a problem with racism on a TV show, let the police investigate it, not the politicians. Government intervention in matters such as these should not, and need not, exist.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join