Re: [b] ++ Re: [thecabal] Fwd: Blunkett joins outcry over paedophile satire

[Tom <tom@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Rik Hemsley <rik@xxxxxxx>:

>> I'm not denying that VoCA *can* suffer long-term effects, but I refuse to
>> accept it as part of an argument as to whether Brass Eye should have been
>> shown. It's her elephant, and Shirley that sort of knee jerk pointing at
>> 'facts' is exactly what Morris was satirising. No?

>She wasn't arguing that this episode shouldn't have been shown because
>victims of child abuse _can_ suffer long-term effects. She was arguing
>that it trivialises child abuse. 

She clearly showed that she was opposed to the programme being shown:
"I find it extraordinary that Channel 4 could have conceived of this idea in 
the first place, let alone turned it into a reality."

When giving her reasons for opposition, she deliberately brought notice to
how some VoCA are affected in the long term:
"This programme trivialised traumatic experiences that can affect children 
for almost their whole lives. Parts of the programme were unspeakably 
sick".

>Your counter-argument was that '*most* victims... suffer no real 
>long-term effects' - which is no argument at all. It's a non-argument 
>that seems like a cheap attempt to avoid the issue, rather like those
>you will see if you watch people trying to hold their own against 
>Paxman.

Ah! Now I see where you're going wrong. I wasn't attempting to argue
against her. I was merely trying to quantify her statement. It's my opinion
that Beverley Hughes' comments were cheap, easy and tabloidesque. She added
no weight to the discussion.
 
In the article forwarded to the list, to which I replied, Ms Hughes made no
attempt to critique the show. She told us it was "unspeakably sick";
supporting this declaration using, what I would refer to as, "emotional
qualifiers" (aka tugging at heart strings). Hers were the sort of comments
I expect to see in The Sun's editorial.

>If this episode _did_ trivialise child abuse, that's serious. I don't
>think it did. Shirley Whatsherface does. 

OK, now you've convinced me you're a lunatic. I was challengeing the
comments made by Beverley Hughes. Who are you talking about? 

>If you're going to disagree with her, please come up with a better 
>counter-argument, or you just make yourself, and anyone else who stands 
>by Chris Morris' approach, look like people who are insistent on ignoring
reason, fact and
>human decency in order to have a laugh.

If Beverley Hughes believes BES was trivialising child abuse, then she
ought to tell us why. Saying VoCA can be affected in the long-term has
*nothing* to do with the initial statement. Yet somehow she managed to link
them. 

So in conclusion: 
I wasn't suggesting she was wrong. I was saying she's rubbish. I apologise
for not communicating this in a more obvious manner the first time around.

Cheers,
Tom.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
|..The Peter Cook Appreciation Society..|
|..present The Establishment: ..........|
|...... http://www.stabbers.org ........|
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


 God's way of forcing BEMLI back on topic..


* Last Subject: Re: [b] ++ Disgusting of Aldershot --*
* Last Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 04:16:50 +0100 --*
* 08:31-31 --*