I take it that you are gathering your children around and telling them that if they get hit by a train, all they need to do is put a plaster on and it will make them better.
I also take it you are gathering your own children around and telling them that everything is nice and cuddly.
When I was growing up in the 70s we didn't have internet footage to show us the full horror of getting hit by a train, just the good advice and guidance of our parents. By some strange miracle in my 40 odd years on this planet I haven't yet been hit by a train.
Showing uncensored news will serve no purpose. After the initial shock people would eventually become desensitised to relentless horrific footage. People aren't stupid, we all know the horrors of war and worldwide disasters.
The TV channels have to strike a balance and generally they get it about right. You want more detail then head over to the internet.
Because not showing your children such materiel would make you a hypocrite .
Suprise surprise..ducked a very simple question about a point you raised.
Parents generally control what their children see and hear in many ways, so you could say that parents are the censor for their children or you could just call it parenting. It's understandable that parents want to keep their children safe from harm, but some do this by wrapping them in cotton wool and never allow them to be exposed to anything that could upset them, which could be self defeating.
Surely, the most important thing to consider when educating children to danger is to make sure they understand the message and that it has suitable impact. Using symbolism and guessing what happens next may be OK for most adults to understand, but think a more simple direct approach is needed for children. If that means more graphic content, then so be it. It may upset them, so what, they'll get over it.
Same here. Why would we want to see such graphic stuff on the news. Just tell us what happened.
Most western countries WOULDN'T show that type of thing we are far from alone.
BIB - Do you have any evidence for that?
Already heard on this thread that Norway and Germany don't seem to censor the news like British TV does.
Chinese people are maybe not the best example you could have picked! The animal cruelty that goes on in that country is appalling, with unnecessary pain caused to thousands of animals every day. Nothing changes, so maybe a fair chunk of Chinese people don't mind seeing pain and suffering?
The clip just happened to be from Chinese TV, it wasn't a choice. I thought it was ironic, considering their record on censoring the internet and other aspects of the media.
The British are probably the biggest animal lovers in the world and the Chinese obviously are not, their culture is different in that way. But I don't think it's a case of Chinese people not minding seeing pain and suffering, it's just that their TV station does not feel the need to censor it.
Already heard on this thread that Norway and Germany don't seem to censor the news like British TV does.
The clip just happened to be from Chinese TV, it wasn't a choice. I thought it was ironic, considering their record on censoring the internet and other aspects of the media.
The British are probably the biggest animal lovers in the world and the Chinese obviously are not, their culture is different in that way. But I don't think it's a case of Chinese people not minding seeing pain and suffering, it's just that their TV station does not feel the need to censor it.
Evidence? What evidence could I give you? Just the fact I've been to most countries in Europe, North America, Australia and several Asian countries. I've not noticed the news coverage is any different to ours in western, developed countries. I didn't watch the news in Asia though so yes that could be different.
JurassicMark
Parents generally control what their children see and hear in many ways, so you could say that parents are the censor for their children or you could just call it parenting. It's understandable that parents want to keep their children safe from harm, but some do this by wrapping them in cotton wool and never allow them to be exposed to anything that could upset them, which could be self defeating.
Not exposing children to graphic images/footage of people being killed,maimed, tortured is not wrapping them up in cotton wool. I did not need to see a person ripped to shreds to understand that if I get hit by a car or a train there is a pretty good change I would be killed, or seriously hurt. I have never once seen an public information advert that remotely suggests that being hit by a train might leave you with a nasty cut that would require a plaster to sort out.
You are the one saying if children do not see these graphic images/footage of people being killed, maimed they will not understand the dangers of crossing rail tracks.
So I ask you again. In order to teach your children, and not wrap them up in cotton wool, did you show them the graphic footage you seek out online in order to highlight the true dangers of crossing/playing on rail tracks and the dangers of crossing the road.
Why are you finding it hard to answer such a basic question regarding your own opinion.
Surely, the most important thing to consider when educating children to danger is to make sure they understand the message and that it has suitable impact. Using symbolism and guessing what happens next may be OK for most adults to understand, but think a more simple direct approach is needed for children. If that means more graphic content, then so be it. It may upset them, so what, they'll get over it.
So again, did you or are you showing your children footage of people being killed by trains and crushed by cars in order they get the message of the real world.
If not why do you think it better for other children to see such footage and not your own.
So again, did you or are you showing your children footage of people being killed by trains and crushed by cars in order they get the message of the real world.
Ideally, they would see such images in the context of a safety video, but failing that I would try to find appropriate content on the internet in order to educate them (if I had any children)
Ideally, they would see such images in the context of a safety video, but failing that I would try to find appropriate content on the internet in order to educate them (if I had any children)
That wasn't too hard was it, got there in the end.
So if you had children you would show them the footage you seek out on the internet. The appropriate footage for not playing on railtracks would be showing someone actually being killed on the railtracks. Your just saying anything now aren't you.
On what exactly are you basing your opinion that showing children such things would make them more aware of the dangers of real life, more so than the information they get now.
Germany has been used as an example of TV that shows such footage, I have no idea if they do or not so I will take your word for it. How do death rates on the railtracks over there compare to the UK's. (Bare in mind the UK has the lowest death rate in Europe)
The England squad visited an orphanage in Brazil today as part of their farewell engagements.
"It was heartbreaking to see their sad little faces" said Pablo aged 6.
That wasn't too hard was it, got there in the end.
So if you had children you would show them the footage you seek out on the internet. So the appropriate footage for not playing on railtracks would be showing the footage of so some being killed on the railtracks. Your just saying anything now aren't you.
On what exactly are you baseing your opinion that showing children such things would make them more aware of the dangers of real life, more so than the information they get now.
You used Germany as an example of TV that shows such footage, I have no idea if they do or not so I will take your word for it. How do death rates on the railtracks over there compare to the UK's. (Bare in mind the UK has the lowest death rate in Europe)
I'm not saying that current safety ads aimed at children are ineffective, but there's a chance they could be misinterpreted if the message is not clear and less effective if it's not hard hitting enough.
Don't have any evidence that this will make children more safety aware, but it seems likely to me that it would. The UK government produces progressively more graphic health/safety campaigns concerning the risks of smoking, not wearing a seat belt, etc. Surely, this happens due to them perceiving previous campaigns as being not effective enough.
I'm glad we have the lowest death rate in Europe, but that's due to many factors, not just rail safety ads. As a country, we a very safety concious and some think we are OTT in this respect as you have no doubt heard the phrase "it's health and safety gone mad"
JurassicMark
I'm not saying that current safety ads aimed at children are ineffective, but there's a chance they could be misinterpreted if the message is not clear and less effective if it's not hard hitting enough.
The message is pretty clear, there is no room for misinterpretation as to what exactly these information films mean. What safety ads leave an ambiguous message.
Don't have any evidence that this will make children more safety aware, but it seems likely to me that it would.
Forgive me I assumed you knew how the death rates in countries that do show such footage of rail deaths/car deaths/murders/rapes, all things you think should be shown on UK TV, compare to the UK. After all you are saying uncensored TV of this sort is the better education tool are you not, that is the crux of your thread.
The UK government produces progressively more graphic health/safety campaigns concerning the risks of smoking, not wearing a seat belt, etc. Surely, this happens due to them perceiving previous campaigns as being not effective enough.
True, yet there is a big leap to suggest that actual deaths should be shown. And it would also be a fruitless exercise as it does not work.
I'm glad we have the lowest death rate in Europe, but that's due to many factors, not just rail safety ads. As a country, we a very safety concious and some think we are OTT in this respect as you have no doubt heard the phrase "it's health and safety gone mad
"
All this health and safety gone mad stuff, you know where it all comes from don't you? I would assume Germany has to adhere to the same Health and safety rules our railways do. Do you not think?
If they do not though, beyond both countries having barriers and alarms at many road crossings, how do our railways differ in terms of as you say, health and safety?
But if showing such graphic footage is such a strong educational tool, health and safety shouldn't come into it at all should it. If we are to believe this thread German people see such graphic footage on their TV's so often they are blasè about, it it must not be working. It sounds like they have become desensitised to it does it not. What are you going to suggest next The Running Man..Death Race 2000.:D:D
The message is pretty clear, there is no room for misinterpretation as to what exactly these information films mean. What safety ads leave an ambiguous message.
Forgive me I assumed you knew how the death rates in countries that do show such footage of rail deaths/car deaths/murders/rapes, all things you think should be shown on UK TV, compare to the UK. After all you are saying uncensored TV of this sort is the better education tool are you not, that is the crux of your thread.
Save the sarcasm, it's tiresome.
As said previously, there are many factors which effect a countries health and safety record. What we are talking about here is just one of those factors and I'm not sure the results would be positive if there was no censorship, but it makes logical sense to me that it should.
True, yet there is a big leap to suggest that actual deaths should be shown. And it would also be a fruitless exercise as it does not work.
BIB - How do you know?
All this health and safety gone mad stuff, you know where it all comes from don't you? I would assume Germany has to adhere to the same Health and safety rules our railways do. Do you not think?
If they do not though, beyond both countries having barriers and alarms at many road crossings, how do our railways differ in terms of health and safety?
Don't know about health and safety rules in Germany, but there's no reason to expect it will be exactly the same as in Britain, they will implement the rules as they see fit. I get the impression from hearing various stories about accidents abroad that levels of health and safety in other countries is often far worse than ours.
But if showing such graphic footage is such a strong educational tool, health and safety shouldn't come into it at all should it. If we are to believe this thread German people see such graphic footage on their TV's to the extent they are blasè about, it it must not be working. It sounds like they have become desensitised to it does it not. What are you going to suggest next The Running Man..Death Race 2000.:D:D
Don't really buy the desensitised argument. Way before anyone is desensitised to it, the message should have sunk in. It should be shocking the first time it is seen and hopefully that will be enough.
I'd not been swimming for years either until a couple of weeks ago. All three pools I've been to now do still have communal changing areas and no cubicles. Surprised me too.
So you understood that the girl was killed but those of a lesser intellect would be unable to work it out, especially children. And just in case a child is unable to work it out, even after being told by parents and teachers they should all be shown the sad things you get a kick out of online.
Save the sarcasm, it's tiresome.
It wasn't sarcasm. I foolishly assumed that someone that seeks out this stuff online and thinks it should be shown to children as an educational tool might have come to that conclusion based on a few facts rather than just it being you enjoy watching online.
As said previously, there are many factors which effect a countries health and safety record. What we are talking about here is just one of those factors and I'm not sure the results would be positive if there was no censorship, but it makes logical sense to me that it should.
But your logical sense is to show footage of people being hit by trains and cars to children. And in order to show children the horrors of war they should be shown soldiers being blown up.
Your logic is that showing such things on TV would make people more 'safety aware' There is no proof that showing such thing on TV has such an effect. But you like this stuff. Thats it in a nutshell.
So forgive me if I say your logic is ridiculous.
BIB - How do you know?
How does someone else know something you do not.
Facts and figures. You seem to arrive at your conclusion based on how you get your kicks on the internet and nothing more.
I'll go with facts and figures if you don't mind.
For example.
German railways have to adhere to the same EU regulations as the UK. They have more deaths on their railways than us.
I would post links but you would ignore them and go for the health and safety gone mad schtick.
Don't know about health and safety rules in Germany, but there's no reason to expect it will be exactly the same as in Britain, they will implement the rules as they see fit. I get the impression from hearing various stories about accidents abroad that levels of health and safety in other countries is often far worse than ours.
Yet you dismiss the fact that they have a higher death rate than the UK as being down us having a health and safety gone mad climate. Strange logic especially considering Germany have to adhere to the same EU regulations as us?
Funny you want to dismiss anything that does not fit with your view, a view based on what exactly?
You appear to be basing your view of a completely uncensored UK Tv and educating children on no facts at all.
And even if other countries health and safety might not be as strong as ours it should not matter, according to you countries that show such such footage are showing the real world and educating people, far more than this country.
So forgive me if I say your logic is ridiculous.
Don't really buy the desensitised argument. Way before anyone is desensitised to it, the message should have sunk in. It should be shocking the first time it is seen and hopefully that will be enough.
Of course you dont buy it, you have no intention of buying it.
But the message has not sunk in has it. Germany (which adheres to EU Rail Regulations) appears to have the kind of relaxed approach to such footage yet has a higher death rate at rail crossings than the UK. Of course it must British health and safety gawwn mad that we have less, cant have anything to do with education and parents can it.
That is if German TV does show footage of people being killed by trains? I don't know if they do.
If you do know, how has showing such footage had a social benefit on the German people such as lowering murder rates, car accidents, rapes and so on, is the message sinking in? And if so where is the proof that uncensored footage has had an effect.
Sorry, facts and figures..you don't do them do you,:D
Your the one saying saying an uncensored TV benefits such things as safety and protection. It seems that is based on nothing but a little bit of attention seeking.
. Your an adult that wants to show such footage to other peoples children.
I'm not wasting any more of my time discussing this with you if you're going to resort to making false accusation and insults.
This is why I was reluctant to talk about children in relation to this subject, as I have seen so many threads descend into hysterical rantings once children's concerns are brought up and you have duly obliged in this case.
Think the German's blasé attitude to this is a lot more favourable than the extreme overreaction it has invoked in some on here, which strengthens my views.
JurassicMark
I'm not wasting any more of my time discussing this with you if you're going to resort to making false accusation and insults.
False accusations? :DSo you do not want to show this kind of stuff to children, you do not want this stuff aired on TV as if it is the norm and you do not not seek this stuff out online. Make your mind mind up.
Insults? As someone that wants TV to be complety unregulated when it comes to footage of people dying, be that on the news or for children, you seem to be easily insulted when another person questions your logic behind that. You find it insulting that someone else question the validity and sincerity of your opinion.
This is why I was reluctant to talk about children in relation to this subject, as I have seen so many threads descend into hysterical rantings once children's concerns are brought up and you have duly obliged in this case.
The only reason you raised the subject of children was because you latched onto something else mid thread to keep it going.
I really cannot be blamed if as a 47 year old adult you base your views on nothing but seeing something online and that you like watching such footage yourself. After all that is ALL you are basing your option on isn't it.
So do me a favour don't give me the poor insulted misunderstood poster nonsense, your an adult.
Hysterical rantings? :DOf course, you have conviently mistaken another poster, in a thread YOU created to air your views, disagreeing with your views as hysterical rantings, how predicable.
I really cannot be blamed for the fact that as a 47 year old adult you had to pussyfoot around the most basic of questions regarding your opinion that children should be taught/shown graphic footage and that it makes people more aware.
Think the German's blasé attitude to this is a lot more favourable than the extreme overreaction it has invoked in some on here, which strengthens my views.
Extreme overreaction?? Then you have either willfully or unintentionally misunderstood another person asking you how you arrived at the conclusions you yourself raised in this thread. As it turns out they are based on nothing but your own desire to see such footage on the TV and your own desire to show it to children.
I really cannot be held responsible that in a discussion you are unable to expand on your opinion that countries that do show this footage are somehow more aware than the UK, facts do not back that up but you appear to be under the illusion that 'you think' is good enough.
There is an ignore function, please feel free to put me on it if if you find another poster questioning the validity of your opinion and how you arrived at such opinion insulting and an extreme overreaction.
Don't worry the irony that you are now playing the victim isn't lost on me.
Just because YOU need to see it in such graphic detail doesn't mean the rest of us are so uneducated and unaware of the world.
You actively sought this material out? Why? Care to explain why you "needed" to see such things? That you sought it out in the first place suggests you knew what it contained so it was not to educate or inform you.
Because it's what we should all be watching, the true news, not some sanitised version of the world that pleases us and plays to our sensitivities.
Maybe there would be a bit more humanity and understanding in the world if we stopped sanitising everything before people watched it and showed the true horrors of what is really going on.
Whereas I would like to see the news uncensored 24/7, so that everyone is forced to face up to the real world, I do nevertheless recognise that unfortunately we need to protect kids and so a watershed is regrettably necessary.
Look at the warning last night in regard to a report on Saville in which it was alleged he interfered with dead bodies, with a verbal recount of what he might have done in the vaguest of terms, literally as I just stated, I find that totally pathetic. Are we really so pathetically sensitive in this country that we cannot take someone saying "he may have interfered with dead bodies" without becoming upset?
7 vague words and apparently half the country breaks down in post traumatic stress disorder!
It's about time some people in this country toughened up. It's become full of pathetic extreme left wing do gooders - we can't have proper fireworks because they upset animals, we must have absolute safety in everything...... grow up!
Stop treating your dogs like babies and fussing them at the slightest noise, and they won't wimper when they hear a loud noise. How do you think gun dogs can take it? It's not genetic, it's through training and learning there's nothing to fear. Not being molly-codelled in a way that makes the dog seek comfort when it hears something and reinforces a fear.
Realise that and that you can only take a certain amount of precaution against accidents and cannot have absolute safety without never leaving the housing and wearing a fireproof feather stuffed suit, and everyone will get along better.
..and how can you claim to be educated in the ways of the world if you hide away from the realities? Do you really know what war is like if you listen to BBC news that says "a US soldier was killed by a roadside bomb"? I'd suggest you can't know what that's like unless you've seen it.
White-Knight
Because it's what we should all be watching, the true news, not some sanitised version of the world that pleases us and plays to our sensitivities.
True news is not seeing someone being blown up, tortured, hit by a train or decapitated.
Maybe there would be a bit more humanity and understanding in the world if we stopped sanitising everything before people watched it and showed the true horrors of what is really going on.
:D
You appear to need to see a person being beheaded to understand it, others do not.
I suppose it is beyond your grasp that people have enough humanity not to watch another human being mutilated as if it is a Tom and Jerry cartoon.
Yes I am sure your concern and humanity is top of your list when you seek this stuff out on line.
Look at the warning last night in regard to a report on Saville in which it was alleged he interfered with dead bodies, with a verbal recount of what he might have done in the vaguest of terms, literally as I just stated, I find that totally pathetic. Are we really so pathetically sensitive in this country that we cannot take someone saying "he may have interfered with dead bodies" without becoming upset?
7 vague words and apparently half the country breaks down in post traumatic stress disorder!
Maybe you wanted the newsreader to go into detail about the sexual things that can be done with a cadaver?
Maybe the news should have broadcast a bit of child porn as well, you know REAL news just in case people at home were confused if child abuse is a good or bad thing.
It's about time some people in this country toughened up. It's become full of pathetic extreme left wing do gooders - we can't have proper fireworks because they upset animals, we must have absolute safety in everything...... grow up!
Stop treating your dogs like babies and fussing them at the slightest noise, and they won't wimper when they hear a loud noise. How do you think gun dogs can take it? It's not genetic, it's through training and learning there's nothing to fear. Not being molly-codelled in a way that makes the dog seek comfort when it hears something and reinforces a fear.
Realise that and that you can only take a certain amount of precaution against accidents and cannot have absolute safety without never leaving the housing and wearing a fireproof feather stuffed suit, and everyone will get along better.
:D
Extreme Left wing do gooders, really? I suppose the Tories have not added to any existing animal cruelty laws. I must have missed the part in the last Tory manifesto that called for TV news to be completely uncensored when it comes to showing such footage.
Funny you tell others to grow up when your basic grasp of left and right in politics is childlike.
So its only extreme left wing do gooders is it, all Tories love watching this stuff as well as everyday left wingers. Tories/right wingers do not care for their pets.
It is also telling that you think the deaths of human beings is comparable with animal welfare.
Such humanity you have.:D
..and how can you claim to be educated in the ways of the world if you hide away from the realities? Do you really know what war is like if you listen to BBC news that says "a US soldier was killed by a roadside bomb"? I'd suggest you can't know what that's like unless you've seen it.
Yes we get it, you get your kicks watching this stuff on line. You think it makes you a better person, educated in the world blah blah blah. However most people do not need to see this stuff to understand what happens when someone is blown up or beheaded.
Maybe it is your own intellect that is lacking, after all you think it is only extreme left wing do gooders that make animal cruelty laws,(even when the Tories are in power..how does that one work) You think it is only left wing do gooders that wish not to see the tat you seek out on line on their TVs, you think it is only left wing do gooders that care for their pets.
Then again, your only after a bit of attention aren't you.
Because it's what we should all be watching, the true news, not some sanitised version of the world that pleases us and plays to our sensitivities.
Oh please! If I am told that a bunch of people have been rounded-up and shot (recent news event) why is that not enough? Why do I have to see it happening too? I know how bad it is. Seeing it won't make me think any different. What it probably will do (and will certainly do to young children) is give me nightmares!!
..and how can you claim to be educated in the ways of the world if you hide away from the realities? Do you really know what war is like if you listen to BBC news that says "a US soldier was killed by a roadside bomb"? I'd suggest you can't know what that's like unless you've seen it.
Yes, because I have a mind, am not a complete idiot, am reasonably intelligent and can imagine it. I certainly don't need to see it in graphic detail.
Just watching Steptoe & Son on GOLD with subtitles on - the epidsode with the illegimate son from Aus and guess what they cut out?
They cut out the word "Abo" from the line "Smells like an Abo's Y-Fronts" so it appears Aborigany is now offensive.
Firstly, there's no such word as "Aborigany". Secondly, referring to an aboriginal as an "Abo" is a known racial slur. So that's likely why they cut it out.
Comments
When I was growing up in the 70s we didn't have internet footage to show us the full horror of getting hit by a train, just the good advice and guidance of our parents. By some strange miracle in my 40 odd years on this planet I haven't yet been hit by a train.
Showing uncensored news will serve no purpose. After the initial shock people would eventually become desensitised to relentless horrific footage. People aren't stupid, we all know the horrors of war and worldwide disasters.
The TV channels have to strike a balance and generally they get it about right. You want more detail then head over to the internet.
Parents generally control what their children see and hear in many ways, so you could say that parents are the censor for their children or you could just call it parenting. It's understandable that parents want to keep their children safe from harm, but some do this by wrapping them in cotton wool and never allow them to be exposed to anything that could upset them, which could be self defeating.
Surely, the most important thing to consider when educating children to danger is to make sure they understand the message and that it has suitable impact. Using symbolism and guessing what happens next may be OK for most adults to understand, but think a more simple direct approach is needed for children. If that means more graphic content, then so be it. It may upset them, so what, they'll get over it.
BIB - Do you have any evidence for that?
Already heard on this thread that Norway and Germany don't seem to censor the news like British TV does.
The clip just happened to be from Chinese TV, it wasn't a choice. I thought it was ironic, considering their record on censoring the internet and other aspects of the media.
The British are probably the biggest animal lovers in the world and the Chinese obviously are not, their culture is different in that way. But I don't think it's a case of Chinese people not minding seeing pain and suffering, it's just that their TV station does not feel the need to censor it.
Evidence? What evidence could I give you? Just the fact I've been to most countries in Europe, North America, Australia and several Asian countries. I've not noticed the news coverage is any different to ours in western, developed countries. I didn't watch the news in Asia though so yes that could be different.
Not exposing children to graphic images/footage of people being killed,maimed, tortured is not wrapping them up in cotton wool. I did not need to see a person ripped to shreds to understand that if I get hit by a car or a train there is a pretty good change I would be killed, or seriously hurt. I have never once seen an public information advert that remotely suggests that being hit by a train might leave you with a nasty cut that would require a plaster to sort out.
You are the one saying if children do not see these graphic images/footage of people being killed, maimed they will not understand the dangers of crossing rail tracks.
So I ask you again. In order to teach your children, and not wrap them up in cotton wool, did you show them the graphic footage you seek out online in order to highlight the true dangers of crossing/playing on rail tracks and the dangers of crossing the road.
Why are you finding it hard to answer such a basic question regarding your own opinion.
So again, did you or are you showing your children footage of people being killed by trains and crushed by cars in order they get the message of the real world.
If not why do you think it better for other children to see such footage and not your own.
Ideally, they would see such images in the context of a safety video, but failing that I would try to find appropriate content on the internet in order to educate them (if I had any children)
That wasn't too hard was it, got there in the end.
So if you had children you would show them the footage you seek out on the internet. The appropriate footage for not playing on railtracks would be showing someone actually being killed on the railtracks. Your just saying anything now aren't you.
On what exactly are you basing your opinion that showing children such things would make them more aware of the dangers of real life, more so than the information they get now.
Germany has been used as an example of TV that shows such footage, I have no idea if they do or not so I will take your word for it. How do death rates on the railtracks over there compare to the UK's. (Bare in mind the UK has the lowest death rate in Europe)
Ha, very good!
I'm not saying that current safety ads aimed at children are ineffective, but there's a chance they could be misinterpreted if the message is not clear and less effective if it's not hard hitting enough.
Don't have any evidence that this will make children more safety aware, but it seems likely to me that it would. The UK government produces progressively more graphic health/safety campaigns concerning the risks of smoking, not wearing a seat belt, etc. Surely, this happens due to them perceiving previous campaigns as being not effective enough.
I'm glad we have the lowest death rate in Europe, but that's due to many factors, not just rail safety ads. As a country, we a very safety concious and some think we are OTT in this respect as you have no doubt heard the phrase "it's health and safety gone mad"
The message is pretty clear, there is no room for misinterpretation as to what exactly these information films mean. What safety ads leave an ambiguous message.
Forgive me I assumed you knew how the death rates in countries that do show such footage of rail deaths/car deaths/murders/rapes, all things you think should be shown on UK TV, compare to the UK. After all you are saying uncensored TV of this sort is the better education tool are you not, that is the crux of your thread.
True, yet there is a big leap to suggest that actual deaths should be shown. And it would also be a fruitless exercise as it does not work.
"
All this health and safety gone mad stuff, you know where it all comes from don't you? I would assume Germany has to adhere to the same Health and safety rules our railways do. Do you not think?
If they do not though, beyond both countries having barriers and alarms at many road crossings, how do our railways differ in terms of as you say, health and safety?
But if showing such graphic footage is such a strong educational tool, health and safety shouldn't come into it at all should it. If we are to believe this thread German people see such graphic footage on their TV's so often they are blasè about, it it must not be working. It sounds like they have become desensitised to it does it not. What are you going to suggest next The Running Man..Death Race 2000.:D:D
Covered this in post #41.
Save the sarcasm, it's tiresome.
As said previously, there are many factors which effect a countries health and safety record. What we are talking about here is just one of those factors and I'm not sure the results would be positive if there was no censorship, but it makes logical sense to me that it should.
BIB - How do you know?
Don't know about health and safety rules in Germany, but there's no reason to expect it will be exactly the same as in Britain, they will implement the rules as they see fit. I get the impression from hearing various stories about accidents abroad that levels of health and safety in other countries is often far worse than ours.
Don't really buy the desensitised argument. Way before anyone is desensitised to it, the message should have sunk in. It should be shocking the first time it is seen and hopefully that will be enough.
So you understood that the girl was killed but those of a lesser intellect would be unable to work it out, especially children. And just in case a child is unable to work it out, even after being told by parents and teachers they should all be shown the sad things you get a kick out of online.
It wasn't sarcasm. I foolishly assumed that someone that seeks out this stuff online and thinks it should be shown to children as an educational tool might have come to that conclusion based on a few facts rather than just it being you enjoy watching online.
But your logical sense is to show footage of people being hit by trains and cars to children. And in order to show children the horrors of war they should be shown soldiers being blown up.
Your logic is that showing such things on TV would make people more 'safety aware' There is no proof that showing such thing on TV has such an effect. But you like this stuff. Thats it in a nutshell.
So forgive me if I say your logic is ridiculous.
Facts and figures. You seem to arrive at your conclusion based on how you get your kicks on the internet and nothing more.
I'll go with facts and figures if you don't mind.
For example.
German railways have to adhere to the same EU regulations as the UK. They have more deaths on their railways than us.
I would post links but you would ignore them and go for the health and safety gone mad schtick.
Yet you dismiss the fact that they have a higher death rate than the UK as being down us having a health and safety gone mad climate. Strange logic especially considering Germany have to adhere to the same EU regulations as us?
Funny you want to dismiss anything that does not fit with your view, a view based on what exactly?
You appear to be basing your view of a completely uncensored UK Tv and educating children on no facts at all.
And even if other countries health and safety might not be as strong as ours it should not matter, according to you countries that show such such footage are showing the real world and educating people, far more than this country.
So forgive me if I say your logic is ridiculous.
Of course you dont buy it, you have no intention of buying it.
But the message has not sunk in has it. Germany (which adheres to EU Rail Regulations) appears to have the kind of relaxed approach to such footage yet has a higher death rate at rail crossings than the UK. Of course it must British health and safety gawwn mad that we have less, cant have anything to do with education and parents can it.
That is if German TV does show footage of people being killed by trains? I don't know if they do.
If you do know, how has showing such footage had a social benefit on the German people such as lowering murder rates, car accidents, rapes and so on, is the message sinking in? And if so where is the proof that uncensored footage has had an effect.
Sorry, facts and figures..you don't do them do you,:D
Your the one saying saying an uncensored TV benefits such things as safety and protection. It seems that is based on nothing but a little bit of attention seeking.
. Your an adult that wants to show such footage to other peoples children.
Good luck with that one.
I'm not wasting any more of my time discussing this with you if you're going to resort to making false accusation and insults.
This is why I was reluctant to talk about children in relation to this subject, as I have seen so many threads descend into hysterical rantings once children's concerns are brought up and you have duly obliged in this case.
Think the German's blasé attitude to this is a lot more favourable than the extreme overreaction it has invoked in some on here, which strengthens my views.
False accusations? :DSo you do not want to show this kind of stuff to children, you do not want this stuff aired on TV as if it is the norm and you do not not seek this stuff out online. Make your mind mind up.
Insults?
The only reason you raised the subject of children was because you latched onto something else mid thread to keep it going.
I really cannot be blamed if as a 47 year old adult you base your views on nothing but seeing something online and that you like watching such footage yourself. After all that is ALL you are basing your option on isn't it.
So do me a favour don't give me the poor insulted misunderstood poster nonsense, your an adult.
Hysterical rantings? :DOf course, you have conviently mistaken another poster, in a thread YOU created to air your views, disagreeing with your views as hysterical rantings, how predicable.
I really cannot be blamed for the fact that as a 47 year old adult you had to pussyfoot around the most basic of questions regarding your opinion that children should be taught/shown graphic footage and that it makes people more aware.
Extreme overreaction?? Then you have either willfully or unintentionally misunderstood another person asking you how you arrived at the conclusions you yourself raised in this thread. As it turns out they are based on nothing but your own desire to see such footage on the TV and your own desire to show it to children.
I really cannot be held responsible that in a discussion you are unable to expand on your opinion that countries that do show this footage are somehow more aware than the UK, facts do not back that up but you appear to be under the illusion that 'you think' is good enough.
There is an ignore function, please feel free to put me on it if if you find another poster questioning the validity of your opinion and how you arrived at such opinion insulting and an extreme overreaction.
Don't worry the irony that you are now playing the victim isn't lost on me.
Sorry, what?
I did't mean communal as in mixed sex if that's what you're doubting, I meant there's a men's changing room that's open with no cubicles.
Because it's what we should all be watching, the true news, not some sanitised version of the world that pleases us and plays to our sensitivities.
Maybe there would be a bit more humanity and understanding in the world if we stopped sanitising everything before people watched it and showed the true horrors of what is really going on.
Whereas I would like to see the news uncensored 24/7, so that everyone is forced to face up to the real world, I do nevertheless recognise that unfortunately we need to protect kids and so a watershed is regrettably necessary.
Look at the warning last night in regard to a report on Saville in which it was alleged he interfered with dead bodies, with a verbal recount of what he might have done in the vaguest of terms, literally as I just stated, I find that totally pathetic. Are we really so pathetically sensitive in this country that we cannot take someone saying "he may have interfered with dead bodies" without becoming upset?
7 vague words and apparently half the country breaks down in post traumatic stress disorder!
It's about time some people in this country toughened up. It's become full of pathetic extreme left wing do gooders - we can't have proper fireworks because they upset animals, we must have absolute safety in everything...... grow up!
Stop treating your dogs like babies and fussing them at the slightest noise, and they won't wimper when they hear a loud noise. How do you think gun dogs can take it? It's not genetic, it's through training and learning there's nothing to fear. Not being molly-codelled in a way that makes the dog seek comfort when it hears something and reinforces a fear.
Realise that and that you can only take a certain amount of precaution against accidents and cannot have absolute safety without never leaving the housing and wearing a fireproof feather stuffed suit, and everyone will get along better.
..and how can you claim to be educated in the ways of the world if you hide away from the realities? Do you really know what war is like if you listen to BBC news that says "a US soldier was killed by a roadside bomb"? I'd suggest you can't know what that's like unless you've seen it.
You appear to need to see a person being beheaded to understand it, others do not.
I suppose it is beyond your grasp that people have enough humanity not to watch another human being mutilated as if it is a Tom and Jerry cartoon.
Yes I am sure your concern and humanity is top of your list when you seek this stuff out on line.
Maybe you wanted the newsreader to go into detail about the sexual things that can be done with a cadaver?
Maybe the news should have broadcast a bit of child porn as well, you know REAL news just in case people at home were confused if child abuse is a good or bad thing.
Extreme Left wing do gooders, really? I suppose the Tories have not added to any existing animal cruelty laws. I must have missed the part in the last Tory manifesto that called for TV news to be completely uncensored when it comes to showing such footage.
Funny you tell others to grow up when your basic grasp of left and right in politics is childlike.
So its only extreme left wing do gooders is it, all Tories love watching this stuff as well as everyday left wingers. Tories/right wingers do not care for their pets.
It is also telling that you think the deaths of human beings is comparable with animal welfare.
Such humanity you have.:D
Yes we get it, you get your kicks watching this stuff on line. You think it makes you a better person, educated in the world blah blah blah. However most people do not need to see this stuff to understand what happens when someone is blown up or beheaded.
Maybe it is your own intellect that is lacking, after all you think it is only extreme left wing do gooders that make animal cruelty laws,(even when the Tories are in power..how does that one work) You think it is only left wing do gooders that wish not to see the tat you seek out on line on their TVs, you think it is only left wing do gooders that care for their pets.
Then again, your only after a bit of attention aren't you.
Oh please! If I am told that a bunch of people have been rounded-up and shot (recent news event) why is that not enough? Why do I have to see it happening too? I know how bad it is. Seeing it won't make me think any different. What it probably will do (and will certainly do to young children) is give me nightmares!!
Yes, because I have a mind, am not a complete idiot, am reasonably intelligent and can imagine it. I certainly don't need to see it in graphic detail.
They cut out the word "Abo" from the line "Smells like an Abo's Y-Fronts" so it appears Aborigany is now offensive.
Firstly, there's no such word as "Aborigany". Secondly, referring to an aboriginal as an "Abo" is a known racial slur. So that's likely why they cut it out.