IMAGE 1
Media Watch UK have an eye for blasphemous libel… Whilst Monty Python’s Life Of Brian escaped legal action from MWUK, this book categorically denies the existence of a supernatural creator, which MWUK finds offensive and blasphemous. Blasphemy law states that “At common law it is an indictable offence punishable by fine or imprisonment to speak or otherwise publish any matter blaspheming God by vilifying or bringing into disbelief or contempt or ridicule Christianity in general or any doctrine of the Christian religion.” We are lighting our burning torches, and mounting a charge on Mr Dawkin’s private residence in the early hours of the morning. With our legal advisors, obviously.IMAGE 2
MWUK has little issue with this image. It is scientifically presented and educational in nature.IMAGE 3
This image was banned after numerous complaints in December 2000. MWUK has strong views on pre-watershed nudity and, as such, this advert has no place on street billboards or anywhere young and precious children might be corrupted or offended by it.IMAGE 4
MWUK have in previous years condemned Michael Grade at Channel 4 for broadcasting Goodfellas at 10pm, when 2 million starving people were being subjected to horrible atrocities in Rwanda, claiming such a violent and obscene film desensitised the audience to the real-world atrocities. Images such as this, which heighten the audience’s awareness of real people’s plight around the world are thus supported by MWUK, although the image may cause offence. The image, in the correct context, is intended to inform the audience, and should not be banned, but perhaps come with a warning about the disturbing nature of the image, to protect the young ‘uns.IMAGE 5
MWUK see no place for pornography in today’s society. Ban it! No, we know WE can’t, but we can make a petition… I’ve got some PVA glue and some glitter, how can the MPs ignore that?IMAGE 6
Oh good heavens… It’s sexually explicit, but it’s educational! Oh we’re all of a dither… This image is acceptable given the context, albeit a little explicit for our tastes… couldn’t they just be holding hands on a park bench? This image certainly shouldn’t be available to young people. We wouldn’t want teenagers getting the ‘safe sex’ message after all.IMAGE 7
We at MWUK have problems with mock violence on TV, let alone the real-life execution of Mr Hussein. The content on YouTube should be regulated somehow. I feel another petition coming on...IMAGE 8
Given the context of this image being featured in an art gallery or exhibition, MWUK feels that it is sufficiently restricted from the public domain, and in an environment in which morally shocking images are to be expected these days.IMAGE 9
This is shit. I’m sorry, we meant sh*t. Apologies to those offended. It’s in an art gallery with, frankly, a whole bunch of other sh*t we don’t give two hoots about (see above) unless it were to enter the public domain. In which case, we’d probably sh*t ourselves.IMAGE 10
This is unacceptable in the eyes of MWUK. Imogen i-used-to-be-on-Big-Brother-and- must-therefore-count-as-a -celebrity-and-thus-have-a- sex-tape-in-my-closet Thomas is not worthy broadcast material. It should be banned, as with all non-educational sexually explicit content. Dirty girl.IMAGE 11
Ooh! Violent videogame, our specialty! Ban it, BAN IT NOW! Mr MP, we’ve already got a petition for this one!IMAGE 12
Oh we complained. A lot, the broadcast of JSTO was a misguided attempt at giving the licence-payers what they wanted. The BBC failed in our opinion, instead alienating a large portion of their viewing audience.Cynical, moi? Never...
