Dambusters

Channel 5 every ad "just to warn you this film contains offensive language "for **** sake
Because dog was called ******. Fecking ********. 1955 it was filmed.

 

The world is different now to 1955 (thankfully).

You'd rather have to listen to that than them bleeping it out, surely...

 

Yes a would but why would anyone find it
Offensive it's a classic British film with no offence
Being pointed.

 

Last time I saw it on tv, the offending word wasn't in, when the guard speaks to the dog he just says ' hello.....old boy'..just a slight pause
hardly noticeable.

 

Far worse spoken every evening on all channels.

 

Classic film and spoken in the way of the time

Just to show you how PC barmy the world has gone, me and some work mates have recorded a rock song called Naughty Naughty to raise funds for Diabetes awareness. A well known radio station wouldnt play it because one line was You'd look better in your birthday suit, dead genuine I was gob smacked at how little we are allowed to say these days

 

My mother in law works for a company re-packing hair dyes - because they are originally packed multi language and in Spanish the word for black - well apparently we're not allowed to see or hear any spaniards seeking a black hair dye in any UK high street chemist lest it offend - bonkers.

 

Why? Don't get that at all. For baldtyke sorry.

 

One of the big TV offerings this Christmas is an adaptation of Agatha Christie's "Ten Little ******s". That was changed long ago to "And Then There Were None". Stupid.

I haven't read the book for decades but I vaguely remember that the idea was that ten little black figures in the house are destroyed one by one, to coincide with one of the house guests being bumped off.

 

The film has to be considered in the historical context that it is set in. Sadly some will find it offensive regardless of the context so yes I think a warning is appropriate. I'd much rather they issued the warning than censor the film by bleeping or editing out the word.

 

I have to disagree Mario .... If that warning put one person off from watching the film or a parent from letting a child watch the film it's a travesty for what the film actually shows us i.e Fighting for a democratic society with freedom of speech. By bringing attention to it in an announcement before the film its promoting the fact there is a racial connotation when in actual fact the dog was named completely without prejudice and purely after its colour!! Would we be having the same discussion had the dog been called Sandy?

Personally it's absolutely PC gone mad but if channel 5 were that concerned then dubbing the word out as mentioned above would have been a much better solution .....but I imagine the dubbing out would have cost Channel 5 that few pound extra than a voice over warning at the beginning!!

 

But the colour was named after Africans in a demeaning way even back in the day.
The fact it was used by the populace in an undemeaning way is irrelevant its the origins that count .
IMO for such a great tribute to the act of bravery a voiceover of the name could be achieved without any spoiling adverts and potential offence .common sense obviously hasn't prevailed on this occasion.imo

 

I agree with you 100%, it really winds me up but better to put in a warning than bleep the word out. I think a warning is a whole lot better than dubbing the word out.

 

I didn't hear the warning, but did watch the film. I was quite shocked. Regardless of the context, it's not a nice word to hear on afternoon telly.

 

Did you turn it off after the first time you heard it or did you martyr yourself by watching the whole way through. FFS

 

May I ask where the word came from in the 50s if it wasn't related to what people assume it was?

 

My guess is that is down to the company itself wanting to repack them and not a rule or anything like that

 

There's far less censorship these days, in all media. Check this list of banned songs by the BBC and their dates

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_banned_by_the_BBC

People constantly claim that it's today's society that is so politically correct, but the truth of the matter is that censorship has now been relaxed to the point where it often makes the news when it's applied while in the past you could barely say a word out of turn. It's worth reading up what happened to John Lydon and Jello Biafra, not just at the hands of censors, but the police and the state, for the heinous crime of being in a punk band and swearing a bit.

 

oh! dear. For people like Marlon and The Flash... Three things...

The old adage "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me" holds true.

Secondly, Words are only offensive or threatening if that is the intention.You presumably are white Caucasian so why are YOU personally offended?

Thirdly, Indignation/taking offence by proxy is one of the worst aspects of 'PC. An Asian colleague and his best mate used to greet each other using racist terms and fairly discretely (only in the presence of the inner circle who understood the ironic nature of their mutual greeting) until , one day one of the PC brigade overheard them, and made a complaint that they were offended resulting in a written warning for both. Reginald D Hunter was pilloried by using the N word by a load of white people in spite of the fact he is an American of African descent and the fact that he was using humour ironically to make a point.

Sadly this seems to be more and more the case in the UK rather tha many other countries where PC is not quite so prevalent. Even sadder, people in the UK regard this as a sign of a country being 'backward' and unelightened or even racist. People should focus on real acts of racism such as happens in the good 'ol US of A rather than seeing it where it isnt really present. THEN we might actually start to get somewhere!

 

Firstly
Nothing in my post attacks you or anyone personally.

Secondly
I'm not personally offended per se ,

If other people are offended is it too much to change small things I mean my God which film has ever been made that was 100% true to the actual facts it was based on.

Thirdly
Your rantings are not only wide of the mark but totally wrong in assumption (probably to make your post look good IMO).