XPost: rec.arts.drwho 
 From: noname@nospam.com 
  
 On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 18:14:52 +0100, "Ian Salsbury" 
  wrote: 
  
 > 
 >"The Doctor"  wrote in message 
 >news:d99cv9$ppi$4@gallifrey.nk.ca... 
 >> In article <42b80cf8$0$304$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>, 
 >> FairPlay  wrote: 
 >>> 
 >>>"The Doctor"  wrote in message 
 >>>news:d98vnj$g4a$16@gallifrey.nk.ca... 
 >>>> In article , 
 >>>> Ian Salsbury  wrote: 
 >>>> >>>> Still, do you rate RTD's participation in DW as good as 
 >>>> >>>> a producer's stint in the BBC Jerry Springer opera? 
 >>>> >>>> 
 >>>> >>> 
 >>>> >>>Eh? 
 >>>> >>> 
 >>>> >>> 
 >>>> >>> 
 >>>> >>> 
 >>>> >> 
 >>>> >> Repeat, do you think RTD's participation is as good as the producer 
 >>>> >> who made the Jerry Springer Opera the BBC was about to air? 
 >>>> > 
 >>>> >I can`t see what your`re on about here still. The Jerry Springer Opera 
 >>>was 
 >>>> >aired in the BBC, got about 3 or 4 million viewers, generally very 
 >>>positive 
 >>>> >reviews ( it had been a hugely successful west end production ) and a 
 >>>> >few 
 >>>> >hundred religious nutters threw their toys out of the pram. The vast 
 >>>> >majority of people saw no reason to be offended by it whatsoever. 
 >>>> >Exactly 
 >>>> >what this has to do with RTD`s involvement in Dr Who is beyond me. The 
 >>>> >public reaction to Dr Who has been overwhelmingly positive, a few 
 >>>> >people 
 >>>> >have complained it was too scary for the timeslot ( just like the good 
 >>>old 
 >>>> >days! ) but that was about it. 
 >>>> > 
 >>>> > 
 >>>> > 
 >>>> 
 >>>> Still let us help FP.  The Christians were rotesting 
 >>>> against  the defamation of religion, namely 
 >>>> Chritstianity. 
 >>>> 
 >>>> I wonder if FP would equate RTD to such a producer. 
 >>> 
 >>> 
 >>>No. 
 >>> 
 >>> 
 >> 
 >> Why?  AFAIK, the vility in JS is as bad as the innuendo in this season's 
 >> DW. 
 > 
 >HAHAHA, exactly - "as far as you know". You haven`t even seen it, the same 
 >as all the other nutter`s that were up in arms about it. It was shown at 
 >around 11pm FFS, the people protesting over this were the sort of people I 
 >abhore. I`m an adult and can decide for myself what I want to watch at that 
 >time of night and as a non christian it didn`t offend me in the slightest. 
 >Plenty of warnings were given as to the content, if you thought it was the 
 >sort o t hing that was going to offend you don`t watch it! Don`t try and 
 >force your opinions and religions on to me and dictate what I can and cannot 
 >watch. For what it`s worth, I thought it was pretty crap anyway! 
 > 
 > 
  
 I agree entirely.  The BBC received over 45,000 complaints which is by 
 far the most ever received, although it should be pointed out that it 
 is uncertain whether it was actually 45,000 complaints or 1 complaint 
 45,000 times and they were received before the program actually aired. 
  
 The program was undoubtedly blasphemous and, had I been a Christian, I 
 would have been offended by the depiction of my religion. Of course, 
 though, offense alone shouldn't be a reason to censor. 
  
 Christian Voice, the organisation that was most vocal in its protests, 
 did make one valid point.  The BBC would never have made a program 
 which was similarly offensive to any other of the major religions. 
 Perhaps producers are reluctant to share the fate of Salmon Rushdie or 
 Theo van Gogh. 
  
 Of course the looming Incitement to Religious Hatred legislation will 
 probably put a stop to this sort of thing.  People are hardly going to 
 risk a seven year prison sentence on the off-chance that the Attorney 
 General decides (under pressure, no doubt, from religious protests) 
 that what they have said was likely to have stirred up hatred for a 
 religious group.  I guess the age of enlightenment was just a silly 
 little phase after all. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)