RE: The Thought Police
Monday 7th October 2002
The Thought Police
Sensible self regulation or PC nonsense?
Discussion
quote:
On second thought, ban motorsport!
shuddup ferchrisssakes Podie!!! 
You don't think that there aren't plenty of people who'd countenance that???
"Well I don't like motorsport. It doesn't interest me. Besides, it's noisy, bad for the environment and kills participants and spectators. Makes fox-hunting look like a good idea. More tea, Mildred?"
Paranoia? Maybe, but it don't mean etc..
Edit: As regards this ASA/ITC lot.. well we know full well that by their very nature, they're interfering prudish busy-bodies. Nobody gets themselves onto such a panel to facilitate pushing the boundaries - always to 'stop the rot'.
But let's not be so naive as to presume that the marketing/advertising wallahs at these car companies to be victims here. The guidelines are there in black & white. Do you think these multinational corporations with global advertising spen of billions of dollars don't have poeple who can read and comprehend these rules before making their adverts?
They know the rules full-well and they exploit the perceived pettiness of them to get extra publicity in the motoring press and the wider media.
Finally, this:
quote:If that ain't paranoia then what is?
The auto industry's pre-emptive Euro appeasement on this issue has set a dangerous precedent. After all, if car ads with blurred backgrounds are considered too inflammatory for impressionable readers, why should magazines or websites be allowed to use them? Why should car media like Evo, PistonHeads.com or Top Gear be allowed to "glamorise" fast driving? If you take the argument to its logical conclusion, why should manufacturers be allowed to build powerful sports cars in the first place?
There is an obvious and important distinction in that Evo, pistonheads.com etc are not directly selling you anything. Their existance and service to an existing market of motoring enthusiasts is above all else an exercise of free expression. Something that is thankfully guaranteed to us.
Expresssion which is explicitly or implicitly there to induce you to buy a munfacturers product - ie advertising - is a whole seperate ballgame.
or something..
>> Edited by CarZee on Monday 7th October 10:12
quote:
Is there anyone we can complain to as I can't see anything on the ASA web site. Surely this has gone too far. Are we going to ban the highway code or roadcraft for encouraging people to overtake when safe!!
You could try using the 3 contact email addresses at the bottom of the piece!
Well, now you've come to mention it, did anybody else see this:
Whitehall hawks patrol no-fly zone
By George Trefgarne
(Filed: 02/10/2002)
High-flying civil servants have been given the task of keeping the skies around Whitehall clear.
A 3ft Harris hawk flies around Big Ben to discourage pigeons from roosting on Whitehall buildings
They are a squadron of hawks called Nelson, Hardy, Buzz, Harriet and Red. Their mission, taking off before dawn, is to create a no-fly zone for pigeons.
Among the buildings they protect are the newly refurbished Treasury building, which Gordon Brown wants to keep pristine, John Prescott's Cabinet Office and the Houses of Parliament.
"Pigeons are basically vermin," said David van Vynck, the hawks' chief handler. He looks after Nelson, a nine-year-old Harris hawk. "Pigeon droppings are unhygienic and they stain the stone work."
Every day, at 4am, Mr van Vynck, 31, and his team of falconers drive from Orsett in Essex to start their patrols.
"We love it," he said. "We would be falconers as a hobby even if we weren't paid to do it."
While the pigeons are still sleeping, the handlers climb on to the roofs with the hawks. Usually the pigeons take one look at the hawks with their 3ft wingspan and flee. Those that are not quick enough are killed and eaten with relish. It makes a change from the hawks' usual diet of day-old chicks.
"They haven't killed a Treasury pigeon yet," Mr van Vynck said, "but they have dispatched plenty of others. They eat them unless I get there first."
Now, what's the difference between this and hunting with dogs?
Whitehall hawks patrol no-fly zone
By George Trefgarne
(Filed: 02/10/2002)
High-flying civil servants have been given the task of keeping the skies around Whitehall clear.
A 3ft Harris hawk flies around Big Ben to discourage pigeons from roosting on Whitehall buildings
They are a squadron of hawks called Nelson, Hardy, Buzz, Harriet and Red. Their mission, taking off before dawn, is to create a no-fly zone for pigeons.
Among the buildings they protect are the newly refurbished Treasury building, which Gordon Brown wants to keep pristine, John Prescott's Cabinet Office and the Houses of Parliament.
"Pigeons are basically vermin," said David van Vynck, the hawks' chief handler. He looks after Nelson, a nine-year-old Harris hawk. "Pigeon droppings are unhygienic and they stain the stone work."
Every day, at 4am, Mr van Vynck, 31, and his team of falconers drive from Orsett in Essex to start their patrols.
"We love it," he said. "We would be falconers as a hobby even if we weren't paid to do it."
While the pigeons are still sleeping, the handlers climb on to the roofs with the hawks. Usually the pigeons take one look at the hawks with their 3ft wingspan and flee. Those that are not quick enough are killed and eaten with relish. It makes a change from the hawks' usual diet of day-old chicks.
"They haven't killed a Treasury pigeon yet," Mr van Vynck said, "but they have dispatched plenty of others. They eat them unless I get there first."
Now, what's the difference between this and hunting with dogs?
. 
quote:yeah, but who gives a crap?? nature can be harsh sometimes.. what are we to do? Put the pigeons in counselling and the hawks into an anger management group for chrissakes?
What many people do not realise is that these birds eat their prey alive! They do not have the means to kill prey outright on capture. Once in the talons they start to rip bits out until the prey dies.
This isn't like fox-hunting because (a) it's not a sport pursued by anti-social hoorays but disguised as a means of pest control - it is unequivocally a matter of pest control. (b) They do say that the effect of the hawks is to keep the Pigeons away rather than kill them - as soon as they catch sight of the bird-of-prey, they're offski to shite on people at Waterloo instead..
Also, I'd rather they did this than spending a million quid of our money getting the pigeon cack sandblasted off the stonework every couple of years.. We should have more of it.. round all public buildings.. one of the many ways that country life, pursuits and vocations could be effectively 're-integrated into society'.
I also think shepherds with dogs should be used to manage the crowds of sheep at the railway stations in London.
quote:
This isn't like fox-hunting because (a) it's not a sport pursued by anti-social hoorays but disguised as a means of pest control - it is unequivocally a matter of pest control. (b) They do say that the effect of the hawks is to keep the Pigeons away rather than kill them - as soon as they catch sight of the bird-of-prey, they're offski to shite on people at Waterloo instead..
Hoooooold on there Carzee. Falconry is also a sport - the guy says they'd do it for fun if they weren't being paid to do it. Youu simply cannot ban a sport on the basis that you don't like some of the people who enjoy it. Otherwise, I'd have football banned.
Second point - I think you'll find foxy is offski as well. He doesn't stand in the field saying (in dog language) "come on then, all at once or one at a time, I don't care" to the hounds. Usually, the fox gets away. Because he's wily.
The basic principle, man using one animal to kill another, is indisputably identical.
I think foxes and pigeons are both vermin to be diposed of in the most humane way available.
That's the basic question - and I'm not really qualified to answer it (not that that's ever stopped me holdign forth an opinion before) - but is killing foxes with dogs the most effective and humane way of dipsosing of those particular vermin? And is killing (or scaring off) pigeons with hawks the most effective and humane way of getting rid of them?
That's the basic question - and I'm not really qualified to answer it (not that that's ever stopped me holdign forth an opinion before
) - but is killing foxes with dogs the most effective and humane way of dipsosing of those particular vermin? And is killing (or scaring off) pigeons with hawks the most effective and humane way of getting rid of them?
quote:yeah, but who gives a crap?? nature can be harsh sometimes.. what are we to do? Put the pigeons in counselling and the hawks into an anger management group for chrissakes?
[
welcome back CarZee!
Foxes, pigeons - whats the difference?
Nowt really (no, REALLY) Both are vermin, both cause damage, both need controlling.
Difference is that foxes are a country issue and pigeons a townie issue.
Interesting to see how townies can sanction falconry (a toffs sport if ever I heard one) as a means of pest control when it's something that affects them!
Personally, as a country dweller, I think pigeons are cute and clearly pose no problem to society. I think all this nonsense about pigeons damaging property is hype got up by the urban elite to justify their barbaric "sport". I am reliably informed that pigeon poo is actually very healthy and that in any event the average pigeon only takes a dump twice in it's lifetime. The sooner we ban pigeon hunting the better.
If you want evidence of thought police in action, look no further than the BBC. Unless you're a left wing liberal it's practically impossible to get a journalists or producers or editors job there now.
The jobs are only ever advertised either internally or through the Grauniad. (that well known right wing newspaper!) Traditionally it's always been the "left" thats sought to tell us how to think as well as proscribing how we should all act. Moreover, any dissent from this is treated with haughty, snide, patronising, dismissive condescention. Any attempt to flag up the bias is dismissed as whingeing, or (worse) wrong headedness. In short, the thought Police are so far up themselves they don't even realise they are doing it, and they truly believe they are doing us all a favour!
Anyway, as I said, welcome back CarZee!
Andy 400se
i think those new gossard billboards 'round birmingham make me drive more eractically than a wind-swept still image ever would. Oh, for that matter, why is that Citroen C5 ad still on the tv then where the guy makes the screeching noises 'round the corners.. surely that indicates he's driving too quickly?? especially down that steep and dangerous winding road... *sigh*
PISTONHEADS.COM
Nature Matters ;p
>> Edited by corcoran on Monday 7th October 12:54
PISTONHEADS.COM
Nature Matters ;p
>> Edited by corcoran on Monday 7th October 12:54
How the hell did you guy's get onto the foxhunting thing...
...again. Haven't we had more than enough of that over the past couple of weeks.
Have to say though I'm with Carzee in that, although these guys say "they would do it for a hobby if they weren't paid to do it" the nature of falconry is not of killing other "innocent" animals but simply excercising and maintaining the animal in the most natural way possible while keeping it in captivity (more moral questions there too I know, but that's another issue, as are the "day old chicks", off you go then veggies...)
The facts are that in fox hunting there's one fox and maybe thirty hounds and as many horses (plus untold damage to land crossed), the fox one WILL get torn limb form limb, but others will not be psycologically effected by the hunt.
The Hawks do an actually job, and the deterrant effect is tangible as there are a total five raptors compared compared to thousands of flying rats...
...and out of these only a couple meet their fate (a bit of natural selection probably wouldn't amiss and the polluted flesh of the pigeon probably does the Hawk more harm than good anyway!)...
...It's almost like using only one do-gooding nimby to$$er to scary 60,000,000 britons off fast cars....aaaarrrrgggghhh!!!!!
Mouse.
let's try to keep to the thread, it's a good one.
...again. Haven't we had more than enough of that over the past couple of weeks.
Have to say though I'm with Carzee in that, although these guys say "they would do it for a hobby if they weren't paid to do it" the nature of falconry is not of killing other "innocent" animals but simply excercising and maintaining the animal in the most natural way possible while keeping it in captivity (more moral questions there too I know, but that's another issue, as are the "day old chicks", off you go then veggies...)
The facts are that in fox hunting there's one fox and maybe thirty hounds and as many horses (plus untold damage to land crossed), the fox one WILL get torn limb form limb, but others will not be psycologically effected by the hunt.
The Hawks do an actually job, and the deterrant effect is tangible as there are a total five raptors compared compared to thousands of flying rats...
...and out of these only a couple meet their fate (a bit of natural selection probably wouldn't amiss and the polluted flesh of the pigeon probably does the Hawk more harm than good anyway!)...
...It's almost like using only one do-gooding nimby to$$er to scary 60,000,000 britons off fast cars....aaaarrrrgggghhh!!!!!
Mouse.
let's try to keep to the thread, it's a good one.
quote::sigh: Yertis, you know full-well that we agree on this issue.
Hoooooold on there Carzee. Falconry is also a sport - the guy says they'd do it for fun if they weren't being paid to do it. Youu simply cannot ban a sport on the basis that you don't like some of the people who enjoy it.
My point was that fox-hunting is carried out by anti-social hoorays, implicit in which was the previously explained fact that they trample destructively accross other people's land, block roads and effectively consider themselves above reproach. Also implicit is my assumption that the same cannot be said of Falconers..
I'd quite like to ban banning things. Other than that, no more banning of anything please.. hmm.. football..
nah... what the hell else have people in Newcastle, Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham got to console their miserable scum-pit existences? quote:Yep - bring it on..
The basic principle, man using one animal to kill another, is indisputably identical.
Other points have been adequately covered by others.
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff