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.

 

Royals force Chaser wedding ban

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 04:20 AM
link   


ABC has been forced to pull the plug on The Chaser's satirical commentary of the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton after the intervention of the royal family.


The 'Chaser's' satirical coverage of the royal wedding has been cancelled by the ABC(Australia) after intervention by Clarence House, speaking for Prince William.

For those of you outside Australia, 'The Chaser' is a television comedy group which, under several different moniker (CNNNN, The Chaser's War on Everything), satirised modern political and social events. They would most likely to be known for their stunt at the Australian Apec summit (kind of a regional G20 from what I understand), gaining entry into the most secure areas with 'Osama'.


Despite the allusion on ninemsn that the Chaser were targeted specifically, a late edition to that channels agreement to the coverage was that it could not be used in


"drama, comedy, satirical or similar entertainment program or content"


While I wouldn't go so far to call it an outrage, I am personally disappointed at no longer having an alternative to the other coverages of the wedding.

Julian Morrow, a member of the Chaser stated to ninemsn


"For a monarchy to be issuing decrees about how the media should cover them seems quite out of keeping with modern democratic times — but I suppose that's exactly what the monarchy is,"




posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 04:32 AM
link   
what a joke
they`ll get what they get when they act like this

brainless world
its hard to think that we arernt already run by machines
even if the machines arent technological they are still mechanical

cogs everywhere but no emergency stop button



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 04:34 AM
link   
reply to post by BombDefined
 


Maybe they were coming in from a reptillian angle and this was too close to the bone for the Royals.

Let's be honest about it though, they have the power to control anything and this is no big surprise. Also, I think it demonstrates that William, although painted glowingly in the MSM as having many of his Mother's traits, is still a Royal first and foremost.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 05:14 AM
link   
No freedom of the press here then. Its going to be so heavyeee all this gushing commentary, think if its nice I will make the beach. Afterall it should be pretty deserted with the 2 billion (out of only) 6 billion worldwide watching this tax payers nightmare. I wonder if whilst the world watches whether Syria will be hit, who knows. - I wonder how they count 2 billion for that matter also and who does that counting?

Sorry to be so sceptical but this expense, now? huh!



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 05:29 AM
link   
A bit of a storm in a tea cup? The Royal family don’t want their wedding video used to take the piss out of them, who would?

It’s not like anyone is being gagged, they’re just not being allowed use the BBC’s coverage of the service. The Royal family don’t have to let anyone film the service, they’re doing so because of public demand, it’s not unconstitutional or undemocratic for them to say what this footage can be used for. Just as you could object to the company that did your wedding video using it to advertise themselves on TV.

We don’t own the family; they don’t have to prostrate themselves for us to prod at them at our leisure. We pay them for a constitutional service and beyond that they don’t have to do anything.

The Chaser team, and anyone else, are still free to comment, make jokes, whatever. If you think this represents some MSM conspiracy to stamp out any dissent or criticism of the royals then take a look at the rest of our media. For example Mock the Week (a BBC production) has a regular spot where they take a crack at the royals, incidentally using BBC footage of them; one of the more infamous gags was Frankie Boyle saying that the queen was so old that her pussy was haunted. Despite generating complaints from the public this was cleared by the BBC Trust; not exactly the action of an organisation that is colluding with Clarence House to protect the Royal family’s image eh?

In short, it’s their wedding, it’s up to them who they let in to film and how it is used.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 06:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


Yeah, i dont believe it to be a conspiracy, I just thought it was worthy of taking note.

There is no real point in monarchy for Britain or the commonwealth, their only real role (that I can discern) are to be public figures. That is why I thought that they shouldn't be exempt from scrutiny. I agree that it is their wedding, and they could keep it to themselves if they wished - the signing of the registry. It just seems to be a combination of propagandaic pomp. I suppose thats from public demand though.


I'm not horrified or fearful that it is some great conspiracy, just a bit miffed that the only thing I may have liked about the wedding has been canned, with the order coming from the royals themselves making it noteworthy.

Oh well, guess I'd better line up a DVD for friday night. And burn all my newspapers. sigh



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


You may not have noticed it but the popularity stakes for the royals has never been lower. Poking Camilla with a stick says it all. Once people would have bowed and curtseyed had a car taking the royal-next-in-line drew up.

We watched this morning's news it was virtually all foreigners andthef media who are so keen on the wedding.

The security bill alone without any of the other cots, is going to be horrendous for this; all whilst Cameron is expecting units for the own wedding bill, Personally I wish they had kept it a private affair, they have been living together for a while but presumably we will have the usual white wedding dress hypocracy. The whole things ridiculous. If their longevity, based on the Queen Mother's is reflected in her daughter and her Grandson, William might mount the throne when? I don't care how grumpy I sound its how I geniunely feel, sure hope its beach weather on Friday.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by BombDefined
 


To be honest my reply was directed more towards the “they can control anything”, “they’ll get what’s coming to them”, “no freedom of press” comments below yours.


That is why I thought that they shouldn't be exempt from scrutiny


They’re not, that doesn’t mean they have to be complicit in mocking themselves. If it were your wedding wouldn’t you mind someone, say, posting the video on youtube with a less than flattering commentary? Wouldn’t you stop someone doing that?

It’s no different here, nobody has a right to film the actual wedding service. When Ed Miliband gets married in a couple of months we won’t be saying that the media has been gagged if he stops them filming the service, would we? Why not? He’s a public figure and as leader of the opposition probably has much more real influence than William.


There is no real point in monarchy for Britain or the commonwealth


I disagree but that’s probably for another thread.

reply to post by Lynda101
 



You may not have noticed it but the popularity stakes for the royals has never been lower.


Are they lower than on 30 January 1649?

Anyway that’s beside the point, the fact remains that there are a hell of a lot of (British) people who want to watch this event, whether you’ve notice them or not. Since it is the public that is generating this cost it is the public that will pay (and the foreign media).

There are many things that we don’t all agree with but we all collectively pay for them because there is enough of a public demand. It would be inefficient and impractical to attempt to give a rebate to everyone who didn’t like a particular public event.




top topics



 
2

log in

join