Perhaps The Prince Should Sort Them Out.
News2 mins ago
Are we not allowed to be offended?
48 Answers
In the week when certain members of the Royal family stand accused of causing offence to a couple of our ethnic minorities, a story such as this appears.
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/art s_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article551228 9.ece
Yet does this hit the headlines? no.
Do our politicians make any comments? No.
I am getting rather sick of this one sided approach regarding the act of causing an offence.
This is what offends me, but does anyone do anything about it? No.
The fact that the indigenous population of these isles are the only ones that must constantly stand accused of causing some offence to peoples who are, or who's parents/grandparents are not native of these shores.
The ever increasing building of Mosques, that is slowing turning our once 'green and pleasant land' into a landscape more befitting the middle east.
Seeing that our Queen is the head of the church of England, perhaps now she should be able to retaliate and state that she is offended by this story.
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/art s_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article551228 9.ece
Yet does this hit the headlines? no.
Do our politicians make any comments? No.
I am getting rather sick of this one sided approach regarding the act of causing an offence.
This is what offends me, but does anyone do anything about it? No.
The fact that the indigenous population of these isles are the only ones that must constantly stand accused of causing some offence to peoples who are, or who's parents/grandparents are not native of these shores.
The ever increasing building of Mosques, that is slowing turning our once 'green and pleasant land' into a landscape more befitting the middle east.
Seeing that our Queen is the head of the church of England, perhaps now she should be able to retaliate and state that she is offended by this story.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
well, er, it has hit the headlines. And now you're offended. (Even to claiming Britain's landscape looks like the Middle East... I've camped out in the Syrian desert and I can reveal, to general surprise, that it doesn't look like Surrey at all.)
Anyway: yes, you can well be offended. Why not add a comment to the story on the Times website, write to the producers of Coronation Street, protest to your MP?
Anyway: yes, you can well be offended. Why not add a comment to the story on the Times website, write to the producers of Coronation Street, protest to your MP?
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
It is more likely that the decor of the church was re-arranged for artist reasons and more to do with framing the shot correctly. Granada TV have not said the cross was removed for fear of offending anyone. We have only a Vicar jumping to (probably the wrong) conclusion.
Often items in the background which will distract viewers are moved out of shot. Granada admit the cross was covered, but not that it was because it might cause offense.
Often items in the background which will distract viewers are moved out of shot. Granada admit the cross was covered, but not that it was because it might cause offense.
-- answer removed --
You said God is part of our culture.
That's plain wrong
Is your church packed - I think less than 3% of the country now go to church
Less than half say they believe in God
http://www.secularism.org.uk/only38ofbritonsbe lieveingod.html
They shouldn't have bothered covering it up nobody was going to be offended the idea is ridiculous.
But not as ridiculous as the idea that God is part of our culture
That's plain wrong
Is your church packed - I think less than 3% of the country now go to church
Less than half say they believe in God
http://www.secularism.org.uk/only38ofbritonsbe lieveingod.html
They shouldn't have bothered covering it up nobody was going to be offended the idea is ridiculous.
But not as ridiculous as the idea that God is part of our culture
Even to claiming Britain's landscape looks like the Middle East.
Once again jno false reporting, just what you constantly have the nerve to accuse the Daily Mail of doing.
MY WORDS,
slowing turning our once 'green and pleasant land' into a landscape more befitting the middle east.
Slight difference don't you think?
Once again jno false reporting, just what you constantly have the nerve to accuse the Daily Mail of doing.
MY WORDS,
slowing turning our once 'green and pleasant land' into a landscape more befitting the middle east.
Slight difference don't you think?
Hang on...there's something fishy here.
The vicar claims that the cross was taken down to prevent offence right?
But they filmed the scene, in a church???
That's like filming a scene in an abbatoir but removing all the carcasses to prevent offence to vegans.
Doesn't make a lick of sense.
What response has there been from the production team?
The vicar claims that the cross was taken down to prevent offence right?
But they filmed the scene, in a church???
That's like filming a scene in an abbatoir but removing all the carcasses to prevent offence to vegans.
Doesn't make a lick of sense.
What response has there been from the production team?
-- answer removed --
Maybe not part of YOUR culture jake-the-peg or gromit but those English to whom it is part of their culture have every reason to be offended .I really couldn't care less about people like you but I do side with the English Christians whether they be only 3% or less or more because it WAS a Christian country for centuries until the end of World War11 and then everyone knows what happened and if you don't ,well think about it !
Granada admit the cross was covered, but not that it was because it might cause offense.
Do you have inside information Gromit, if so could you please state where you gained this statement by Granada from?
I have read through the news item again, and can only come up with the following:
A Granada spokeswoman said yesterday: �We are looking into how and why this happened. As the Rev Milnes rightly says, we chose the church because the characters wanted a traditional religious church wedding. Covering up the the cross was an error and we apologise for any upset.�
Do you have inside information Gromit, if so could you please state where you gained this statement by Granada from?
I have read through the news item again, and can only come up with the following:
A Granada spokeswoman said yesterday: �We are looking into how and why this happened. As the Rev Milnes rightly says, we chose the church because the characters wanted a traditional religious church wedding. Covering up the the cross was an error and we apologise for any upset.�
Zacmaster
You raise some interesting points. However, who's to decide what form of national identity new Brits to should take?
Do you have anything in common with a Northern Irish sheep farmer? Or a retired Scottish librarian? Or a fisherman from Cornwall?
The Britain of 2009 is nothing like the Britain of 1959 or 1909 or 1859. Culturally, we are constantly in flux. I mean, take for instance the following:
Church attendance
Family unity (taking in grandma when grandad dies)
Sunday shopping
Home ownership
Adherence to religious festivals
Apprenticeships
Community cohesion
Respect for the elderly
Forms of entertainment
Self discipline
Money sense
Nothing has stayed the same.
I understand you when you say you feel your culture is being swamped (same must've been felt by the Native Americans, Aborigines, Africans and Indians in the past couple of centuries), but it's up to native Brits to celebrate their customs and achievements, rather than bemoaning their loss.
Take for instance St George's Day. The Irish have St Patricks and the Scots have Burns Night, where they celebrate their heritage. Why don't we have the same in England?
Imagine if posters went around the place with white, black and Asian faces over it, encouraging everyone to celebrate England. I guarantee it would be a success.
Look at the Notting Hill Carnival. I've been loads of times and white people go, get drunk and dance about quite happily because they feel included.
I think that is the way to go. Rather than "If you don't like it, s*d off", the attitude should be "Look at this...celebrate our culture with us".
No-one could be against that, surely?
You raise some interesting points. However, who's to decide what form of national identity new Brits to should take?
Do you have anything in common with a Northern Irish sheep farmer? Or a retired Scottish librarian? Or a fisherman from Cornwall?
The Britain of 2009 is nothing like the Britain of 1959 or 1909 or 1859. Culturally, we are constantly in flux. I mean, take for instance the following:
Church attendance
Family unity (taking in grandma when grandad dies)
Sunday shopping
Home ownership
Adherence to religious festivals
Apprenticeships
Community cohesion
Respect for the elderly
Forms of entertainment
Self discipline
Money sense
Nothing has stayed the same.
I understand you when you say you feel your culture is being swamped (same must've been felt by the Native Americans, Aborigines, Africans and Indians in the past couple of centuries), but it's up to native Brits to celebrate their customs and achievements, rather than bemoaning their loss.
Take for instance St George's Day. The Irish have St Patricks and the Scots have Burns Night, where they celebrate their heritage. Why don't we have the same in England?
Imagine if posters went around the place with white, black and Asian faces over it, encouraging everyone to celebrate England. I guarantee it would be a success.
Look at the Notting Hill Carnival. I've been loads of times and white people go, get drunk and dance about quite happily because they feel included.
I think that is the way to go. Rather than "If you don't like it, s*d off", the attitude should be "Look at this...celebrate our culture with us".
No-one could be against that, surely?
Dolly1308
I recently read a couple of books which opened my eyes about the fall in church attendences in this country.
Dominic Sandbrook and (the brilliant) Andrew Marr both concluded that the fall in church attendences after WWII mirrored the individualism that started creeping into society. During WWII it was "we're all in this together", but bit by bit, Brits started to become more insular. Football match attendances dropped, church attendances dropped, people no longer went to holiday camps, the old terraces began to give way to anonymous suburbs.
Weirdly, the only 'bump' in church attendances came in the 50s and 60s when West Indian immigrants started to come across, because the church formed such a strong focal point to their society, although that's now dying out at the same rate that church attendances are dying out amongst the British indigenous young.
I recently read a couple of books which opened my eyes about the fall in church attendences in this country.
Dominic Sandbrook and (the brilliant) Andrew Marr both concluded that the fall in church attendences after WWII mirrored the individualism that started creeping into society. During WWII it was "we're all in this together", but bit by bit, Brits started to become more insular. Football match attendances dropped, church attendances dropped, people no longer went to holiday camps, the old terraces began to give way to anonymous suburbs.
Weirdly, the only 'bump' in church attendances came in the 50s and 60s when West Indian immigrants started to come across, because the church formed such a strong focal point to their society, although that's now dying out at the same rate that church attendances are dying out amongst the British indigenous young.
sp1814
The vicar claims that the cross was taken down to prevent offence right?
WRONG, the cross wasn't taken down it was covered.
That's like filming a scene in an abbatoir but removing all the carcasses to prevent offence to vegans.
Doesn't make a lick of sense.
Your analogy doesn't make a lick of sense. One could film a scene in an abbatoir for a number of reasons, without the need for scenes of animals being slaughted or bloody animal carcasses hung on display.
The vicar claims that the cross was taken down to prevent offence right?
WRONG, the cross wasn't taken down it was covered.
That's like filming a scene in an abbatoir but removing all the carcasses to prevent offence to vegans.
Doesn't make a lick of sense.
Your analogy doesn't make a lick of sense. One could film a scene in an abbatoir for a number of reasons, without the need for scenes of animals being slaughted or bloody animal carcasses hung on display.
AOG
Granada have not said the cross was covered up because it might have caused offence. A Granada spokeswoman (not the production team) has said it was an error.
If the cross was removed for fear of offending someone then that is clearly a very stupid thing to do. If that proves to be the case then I will condemn it as petty, crass and a mistake.
However, I can see production reasons why a distracting background object might be obscured. I can also see why a Vicar might be outraged without knowing the reason it was done and thinking it was for religious reasons and not a technical one.
At the moment we do not have the full story, and I see no reason yet why I myself should be outraged when there might be a perfectly reasonable reason for changing the prop.
We shall have to see what Granada say if anything. If they do confirm the Vicar's story, then I agree they were wrong.
Dolly1308
http://www.stmarysalderley.com/
Granada have not said the cross was covered up because it might have caused offence. A Granada spokeswoman (not the production team) has said it was an error.
If the cross was removed for fear of offending someone then that is clearly a very stupid thing to do. If that proves to be the case then I will condemn it as petty, crass and a mistake.
However, I can see production reasons why a distracting background object might be obscured. I can also see why a Vicar might be outraged without knowing the reason it was done and thinking it was for religious reasons and not a technical one.
At the moment we do not have the full story, and I see no reason yet why I myself should be outraged when there might be a perfectly reasonable reason for changing the prop.
We shall have to see what Granada say if anything. If they do confirm the Vicar's story, then I agree they were wrong.
Dolly1308
http://www.stmarysalderley.com/
Latest Posts
ChatterBank5 mins ago
ChatterBank8 mins ago
Jobs & Education10 mins ago
ChatterBank14 mins ago
