||Media & TV|
If someone makes a threatening or abusive phone call - say a threat to rape or murder - this is a criminal offence. The victim can go to the police, who will investigate and arrest the caller. They are the only person who is comitting a crime. No-one would suggest that British Telecom, or the Broadband provider, should also be prosecuted because their phone line was used to make the abusive call. Yet our dickhead politicians are doing precisely this, with our precious internet. They want the service 'providers' (the broadband companies, and social media companies like Facebook and Twitter) - to be legally responsible for the content of conversations and comments by users. These politicians' definition of a 'crime' is no longer just threatening actual violence - it's any comment which may cause imaginary offence to someone else, as defined in our so-called 'hate crime' laws . Don't these knobheads know the saying ' Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me" ?.
It's not the function of the law to legislate and police people's conversations, opinions, or prejudices. The next step after policing what we say, is policing what we think. If someone doesn't like someone else - for WHATEVER reason - they've got a perfect right to think it, and to say it. No-one's got the right NOT to be offended. It's called Free Speech - and it's how all the rest of the world uses the Internet and social media (with the exceptions of North Korea, China and Cuba which censor the Internet.)
A Mainstream government would abolish all these so-called 'hate' laws which only exist to placate the paranoia of snowflakes. If someone makes a genuine threat of violence on social media - they would be prosecuted. If someone sees and reports a website with illegal content (like child pornography), the website's owner would be prosecuted if they were in the UK; the URL would be passed to the internet providers, who would have to block access to the site. But forcing the tech companies to police their users - forcing them to read all our conversations and posts, and 'monitor' them, and censor what people say because some other person might not like it - NEVER. That's suppressing free speech.
Protecting our right to Free Speech in what we say and write, is far, far more important than placating snowflakes.
When you see the amount of telly hours pouring out which are just utter rubbish - stupid reality shows, envy shows where we get shown every detail in rich celebs' homes, so we all want to go and buy the same stuff - and endless adverts for injury compensation, gambling, payday loans - it's heartbreaking; knowing that just a few of these hours could be put to better use. Educational use which would enrich our lives, and make us safer. No, I'm NOT talking about yet more documentary-style channels like Nat Geo: I mean something we've never tried in this country: Short, hard-hitting adverts in between the programs, to explain some aspect of our Law to young people.
As everyone knows, ignorance of the law is no excuse and doesn't stop you being prosecuted. Unfortunately millions of people especially in the younger age groups, are very ignorant - they've never had these laws explained either by their parents or at school. The way to get their attention is with a warning 'Please do NOT watch the following advert - unless you're a young person involved in minor crime. The situations shown may be distressing for delicate viewers'. (That way - everybody watches !). Then we explain one particular law, the reason it's illegal, and the consequences of conviction. This shows an actual offender from the moment they get caught and arrested ; to going into court on trial day; then finally, we see them being led into the prison gates, head bowed . Throughout, we see them in full metal jacket mode - no obscuring of faces if they have been convicted. These are actual real-life cases of identifiable people. That's the one thing which will have a deterrent effect on hundreds of other wannabe offenders.
MAINSTREAM would abolish the outdated TV lecence fee. The fee was originally used to pay for BBC TV programming, which has no adverts. But in this day and age, when the vast majority of channels on TV are NOT from the BBC - why should all viewers still need to buy a licence, just to watch any telly? The licence has become an absurd anachronism. It's also nearly impossIble to enforce, as there are now loads of ways to receive TV broadcasts which don't come via a TV screen - using online streaming, and so on. With a MAINSTREAM government - the TV licence would be a thing of the past.
Mainstream wants an end to ALL gambling adverts on TV, they are now non-stop during sports events, a curse which needs ending. This will also ban any sponsorship of sports events by gambling companies, and the scope of this new law will include lotteries. Yes these pursuits are all legal, and very popular. So is smoking tobacco - but we ban their adverts because it's harmful and addictive. SO IS GAMBLING. There was even one online betting site being advertised on TV last week, as a way to "Buy those extra luxuries for your family" (if you win that is). Marketing gambling as a form of earned income! The Mainstream ban on TV advertising for gambling, would also include bingo and lotteries - they're also gambling of course.
We also need a clamp-down on ONLINE gambling, restrictions to control the age of participants, the maximum stake allowed and so on. (We should also tax all bets at rhe bookies, not just winning bets, the tax is paid at the time of placing the bet so losing bets are taxed also).
Television is the perfect medium for explaining good driving techniques, yet it's never been tried here. Why not?
A MAINSTREAM government would sponsor short driving-improvement commercials at peak viewing times, each targeting a specific driving situation (eg lane discipline, slip roads entry and exit, parallel parking, and so on). The TV screen would be split into two: Left half showing the vehicles and the road from above, the right side, showing the driver's view (similar to many computer games which involve racing cars). One manouvre which is a prime candidate for improving using TV, is 'how to pass a cyclist in a narrow road when there's a car coming the other way'. Every day I see people doing this wrong.
We'd use TV to improve driving in another novel way: Showing some of the worst drivers in action. This would be a weekly or monthly program called "Dickhead Drivers". This would be made by hiding cameras in places where accidents happen a lot (such as bends on fast roads, blind bends and blind summits, etc) . When a motorist is seen to be driving badly, this section would be shown on TV but unlike existing similar programs, Dickhead Drivers would NOT hide identifying features like registration plates, etc.
Watching this show, would be the same for the viewer as if they were actually present - even if this means they are able to identify not only the cars, but also the people at the wheel. The police would be shown these extracts beforehand so we could get a guarantee of them taking no action. (This is necessary because otherwise, showing these excerpts could prejudice the trial). Then the scenes would be broadcast - drivers in-shot - whether the ones driving badly, or just other passing motorists - would NOT be informed beforehand and would not have any right to prevent their vehicles and driving, being shown on telly. Why not? Because in a public place, no-one has the right not to be watched or filmed. And these bad drivers would no longer be able to claim that their 'Human Rights' were being infringed, by identifying them on TV - that's because we'll soon be free subservience to the Brussels Human Rights laws. (This demonstrates exactly how appalling the EU's Human Rights declaration is - it forces us to keep bad behaviour, and dangerous actions, in public places, hidden and secret, instead of out in the open).
These drivers' bad driving would be on show for their wives, husbands, family and friends to see. All driving habits would soon improve.
'Dickhead Drivers' show: your FAQs
Q. Surely Brussels won't let us reveal bad drivers' identity on TV ? Doesn't this breach their 'European Human Rights' ?
A. Yes, the EU would order us to pull these ads, or be fined a million euros. But guess what? We're LEAVING the EU - so we can tell Brussels to get stuffed.
MAINSTREAM wants to stop television and newspapers from pixellating ("fuzzing-out") faces of people in News items. This happens whether the broadcast is a view taken in the street of passers-by, or CCTV being used to catch criminals, whatever. This is a new scary form of censorship where a privileged few - those who work in the media, and those few people who were actually at the scene - are allowed to see the full picture: But all the rest of us, are prevented from doing so. When will the media magnates get it? The whole point of television news, is that TV is supposed to put US - the viewer - right at the scene of the action. WE are supposed to see on our tellys - exactly what the cameraman - or woman - is seeing. And that means putting a stop to pixellation / fuzzing-out faces, whatever you want to call it. MAINSTREAM would only allow pixellation on Television, in one of two special cases: One, where the pictures were recorded in a private place (eg, somebody's home or garden); or two - where the recording could prejudice a legal case already in progress. (This is called 'sub judice' and means that somebody has already been charged with an offence).
Can our news reporters please STOP putting words in people's mouths when they do interviews. This is the same technique used in modern opinion surveys - instead of an open question "What do you think of ......?" - they force respondents to choose from a set of pre-selected answers. News reporters never used to do this, they used to ask open questions, and we need to get back to that quickly.
Here's a good recent example of putting words in people's mouths, as done by Sky News on 16 August 2019. The reporter asks a police representative "are the increased attacks on police because of a lack of resources, or because society is getting more violent". Straightaway, she is forcing the interviewee to choose one of the two politically-correct answers favoured by Sky News. The proper way to interview is to ask the open question "What d'you think is the reason for increased attacks on the police?" . This then lets the interviewee make up their own mind - they might even agree with Mainstream policy, the main reason is the courts being disgustingly lenient, so violent knife-carrying criminals never go to prison (unless they've already got a hundred previous convictions AND are over 50 years old). But of course Sky News don't want this answer - it's not the politically-correct one.
Mainstream would legislate to force, at least, the government-owned BBC, to use only open-question interviewing.
More and more History documentaries on TV use a mix of actual recorded film material, combined with 're-enactments', where actors play the historic figures in drama scenes. There's a parallel problem with TV science documentaries, which mix actual recordings with high-quality computerised animations. In both cases, there's scope for the viewer to not be aware that what appears to be actual footage of an event or object, is a re-enactment or animation. We would compel TV producers to make clear which bits are not genuine recordings.
..yet the media still use the expressions 'coloured people' and 'mixed race'
When I was a little boy and first saw a black person in the flesh (as opposed to pictures in books), I shouted 'look mummy, that man's black !'. My mum's reply: 'Shh! You have to say ' coloured man' . This expression dates from another place and another time: when having brown or black skin, was believed to be a negative attribute: something to, at the very least, apologise for - if not actually be ashamed of. Something to keep quiet about. You had to say 'coloured', rather than saying the person's actual colour. Those days are long, long gone. None of us would dream of using the word 'coloured' in actual conversation.
So why does our media STILL use this expression? Don't believe me? An example - the Guardian online, 8th June 2018. A journalist called Shaista Aziz uses these actual words (paragraph 9): 'These women are overwhelmingly women of colour'. On at least six occasions in her article, Aziz uses the 'coloured' expression. Honest - I'm not making this up!
On numerous occasions, one of my children, having to fill in a form with one of those horrible 'which ethnic group do you regard yourself' questions, would ask me 'Dad, should I tick the box for 'Mixed Race'?' I always tell them to do what I do myself - draw a new box labelled 'Human Race' - and tick that. The idea that humans are divided into separate 'races' harks back to an ancient pre-columbian view of humanity, where the 'Negro', 'Caucasian', and 'Mongoloid' 'races' (as they were called) each belong to a specific continent, and have totally different needs and behaviours. We've moved on since then! Martin Luther King was 50 years ago. Everyone knows now there's just one Human Race. (Apart from anything else, we understand now that probably the majority of humans on the planet, don't fit into any of the three classical 'race' buckets. )
The only people in the 21st century who still see us as separate 'races' are those who share Hitler's National Socialist beliefs and see humans as a hierarchy, the whites being superior, all other colours being inferior; or those who want 'separate development', like Verwoerd's South Africa, or 1950's Alabama: the different 'races' having their own schools, buses, swimming-pools, park benches, etc. Anyone in this day and age, who puts us into separate 'race' boxes, has only one agenda - the agenda of hate. And the expression 'mixed race' belongs with disgusting expressions like 'half breed' - in the past, not in today's media. (the Spectator, 27th November 2017, calls Meghan Markle by this expression. )(Just one of hundreds of examples).
Mainstream would relax our copyright laws concerning digital images. We believe, for non-commercial users, the re-publishing of images which are not private and already in the public domain (such as images in news websites), should be allowed freely without having to pay royalties to the copyright owners.
Look at any recent crime reporting in popular newspapers (the Daily Mail for example). They ALWAYS use Tory words for offenders. Like the stupid S-C-U-M word. The idiotic T-H-U-G word. Or the pathetic Y-O-B word. Why can't the media use the words ordinary people use? That would be the first step in stopping the crime wave.
When an offender (almost always male) drags a woman out of her car, drives away with her baby , leaving the mother screaming, her face covered in blood: WE don't call the offender a Tory word: We call them a TWAT - that's what they are.
When an offender waits at traffic lights in the dark, for a deliveroo scooter driven by a teenager - then squirts acid in the lad's face, to steal their scooter - WE don't call the offender a Tory word: We call them a TWAT - that's what they are.