Abusive calls give BBC chiefs a Jerry Springer moment

[CHIMO]

Guards were last night protecting the homes of two senior BBC executives as complaints from Christian groups at Saturday's showing of Jerry Springer - The Opera escalated into threats of violence.

The corporation employed a private security firm, Rubicon International, to safeguard the homes of the BBC2 controller, Roly Keating, and the director of television, Jana Bennett.

The pair were deluged with "threatening" and "abusive" phone calls; about 50,000 prior complaints about screening the musical were received by the corporation.

It has emerged that a large number of those complaints were by email and used a similar form of words.

http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1386564,00.html

[Prodemsouth]

I thought Britian was free from this religious right shit. WTF is wrong

with Britian these days.

[goforit]

1. Christians are ugly today!...I'm ashamed of them!!!

Where the hell is civility and tolerence when there is a different
view point.

They no more follow the lessons of Christ than
Charles Manson does.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

2. I fail to grasp how they don't see the image this portrays of them.

Hate filled violent threats are not the concept of Christianity.

They appear more like a raving bunch of cultist.

[truebrit71]

3. Ah yes, following in JC's ways...being abusive and threatening...

..what a bunch of sanctimoniouis, self-important hypocrites...

I know that terrestrial TV choice is a bit limited in the U.K. but the On/Off button must still work, surely?

[arwalden]

4. Threats Of VIOLENCE And HARASSMENT??? That's Not Protesting...

... what makes the people feel so special, and entitled to act in such an abominable way???

[Moderator]

5. Two threads on this topic

have already been locked ( in LBN )because of flamewars.
Forewarned is forearmed.

[BiggJawn]

8. Well, that's the way it goes in War.

Getting so a bunch of Skeptics can't vent without somebody whining about being "persecuted" anymore.

We'll see how long this lasts before it's locked.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BiggJawn]

7. That would explain 50,000 emails.

Wanna bet most of them came from US keyboards?

I guess UK TV sets have no "off" switches?

[Pert_UK]

9. With all due respect, I have rarely read such ill-informed nonsense...

Just after a minute's googling:

2001 Census: "There are 37.3 million people in England and Wales who state their religion as Christian."

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/profiles/commentaries/ethnicity.asp

" 7.5% on an average Sunday" - 7.5% of the population went to Church on an average Sunday in 1999

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/rib.html#ImportanceOfReligion

I'm not a Christian but I know many people who are and none of them match with your bizarre and offensive assertions.

I'm not saying that the BBC didn't get some publicity out of this, and may even have semi-planned it this way......But I'm afraid your comments in this respect are completely undermined by your totally ignorant comments on the UK and Christianity over here.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pert_UK]

12. See, now there you go again......

"I reckon the majority of the rest will be attending some loony American evangical / fundamentalist / Jehova's Witness / Mormon cult or other."

Great. Good for you. You keep on randomly asserting completely unsubstantiated claims if it makes you feel good. Do you also believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny?

I'm not disputing that Church attendance is falling - it clearly is. I'm not disputing that a smaller % of the UK population goes to church than the US population (which is completely irrelevant to this conversation anyway).

What I am disputing is your bizarre assertion that there are virtually no Christians in the UK (blatantly untrue - around a million of them go to Church each week by your own admission). I'm also disputing your claim that most of these Christians are attending some "loony" branch of the Church - can you pull bunches of flowers as well as opinions out of your ass?

[eric144]

22. offensive

"I'm also disputing your claim that most of these Christians are attending some "loony" branch of the Church -can you pull bunches of flowers as well as opinions out of your ass?"

That sounds offensively American to me, just like these violent Christians.

I do have eyes, and I can see the American 'churches' round here. I think we would be a lot better without them and their cultural imperialism. I'm guessing they arrived with the post WWII military occupation of the UK to protect us from communism. I also seem to remember Billy Graham, that great friend of the military industrial complex playing to vast crowds in Britain.

That's a test to see whether I'm actually being deleted for anti-Americanism. Perhaps the first amendment only operates in the USA ?

" a million of them go to Church each week by your own admission"

That's only 2% of the population, a very tiny minority and many are probably elderly

Looking at a picture of Bush for any reason is offensive in itself

[Pert_UK]

28. I don't really want to get into this.....but here goes anyway.....

"I'm also disputing your claim that most of these Christians are attending some "loony" branch of the Church -can you pull bunches of flowers as well as opinions out of your ass?"

That sounds offensively American to me, just like these violent Christians.

I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here - what sounds "offensively American" to you? And are you saying that violent Christians are in some way acting in an "offensively American" way?

I do have eyes, and I can see the American 'churches' round here. I think we would be a lot better without them and their cultural imperialism.

Where is "round here"? I can't really debate this point with you unless I know (very, very roughly) where you are....But as for "American 'churches'" I really have very little idea what you mean by that term. Care to clarify?

I also seem to remember Billy Graham, that great friend of the military industrial complex playing to vast crowds in Britain.

Yes, I also remember that from my childhood.....I can't find any references to a visit from the big BG to the UK in Google or BBC news though, so I'm going to assume that he hasn't done anything big over here for a while.

For the record, I do happen to dislike fundamentalism in any religion, and "Christian" Televangelists really piss me off with their judgemental self-righteousness. What I'm struggling to see is any great evangelical presence in the UK.

This "discussion" started off with a very opinionated, offensive and factually inaccurate statement from you about there being virtually no Christians in the UK, and of those Christians you then suggested most belonged to "loony" / "American" churches.

As indicated, roughly a million people go to Church every Sunday....that's actually quite a lot of people really, but bear in mind that that was just for Sunday, just for the CofE, "more than 1.7 million people attend church and cathedral worship each month while 1.2 million attend each week and one million each Sunday. "

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/news/pr0106.html

But that pales into insignificance when you consider the 41 000 000 Brits who, in 2001, declared themselves to be Christians of one denomination or another. I'm struggling to see what you're trying to say here.......Especially Looking at a picture of Bush for any reason is offensive in itself which I probably agree with but which doesn't seem to follow coherently from your previous points.

And for the record, you don't necessarily get deleted for criticising America on DU, but you do for posting offensive inaccuracies that have no basis in fact. And also, the First Amendment doesn't operate on DU - it's a privately run discussion board for liberal-minded progressives, so Yank or Dem bashing tends to get frowned upon.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

10. I can't access the story

So I have questions. Hopefully we can all discuss this in a manner that will keep nastiness to a minimum.

The article mentions threatening messages. What are those? Is it a threat to say I will try and cost you your job? Sure is to me, but it's a LEGITIMITE action. Is it a threat to say I will contact my MP if you don't take the action I desire? Again, I'd say yes.

Threats of violence or, even worse, actual violence are totally wrong and unacceptable.

But, and here is where the rubber meets the road, this is a protest people. It doesn't matter if you agree with the issue or not. What does matter is that protest is a form of freedom of speech. Protest is a way to voice you anger at something you don't like. We protest when Sinclair does a number on Kerry. And they can protest when the BBC does a number on religion.

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. The most detail of the threats is in the Daily Mail

A BBC source said Friday's phone threats were made to Mr Keating's home and office - and contained a specific threat against him: "He was told that if the show ran, he would die." The BBC reported the calls to the police, who are investigating.

Mrs Keating and the couple's children, who are aged four to 11, left their home yesterday morning for a secret "safe house".

A neighbour said: "Caroline left with the children. She looked very stressed. The family have gone away for a few days."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=333419&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source=

From the Guardian article:

Christian Voice, which orchestrated its campaign from its website, organised a number of peaceful vigils outside BBC offices on Saturday night. Stephen Green, the national director of the group, yesterday admitted it had been "naive" to publish Mr Keating's home number and said that it had been removed when BBC lawyers complained.

However, he vowed to press ahead with plans to pursue a private prosecution against the corporation for the common law offence of blasphemy. "There will be nothing sacred if we cannot successfully prosecute the BBC," he said.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

17. I've said it before, threats of violence are wrong

And violence is wrong.

Protest is well deserved.

On edit: Thanks for that. The link wasn't working for me.

[maddezmom]

19. We have our very own Christian Voice in the US

~snip~
Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act

The Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act is now in Congress. This bill would free pastors and churches to speak on political and moral issues without fear of recrimination from the IRS. A right taken away 50 years ago.

This bill cant succeed without your help. At this moment, it's tied up in committee -- which is why pro-family lawmakers want it attached to the omnibus appropriations bill. This will bring it to vote much sooner.

So you ask, what can you do to help?

By calling key members of the House leadership and urging them to include the language of the Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act in the omnibus appropriations bill.

~snip~
http://www.christianvoiceonline.com/

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. Interesting

The UK Christian Voice is not what I'd call a typical British Christian group. It has an overtly right wing political stance, and looks very like many American 'traditional values' groups - I wonder if it was founded by the American version.

Its policies include:
Bringing back the death penalty (almost unheard of for any British Christian to advocate this)
Make abortion illegal
Make divorce more difficult
Get more women staying at home, rather than working
Close shops on Sunday
Abolish the National Lottery
Make pornography illegal
Make homosexual sex illegal
Withdraw from the European Union (seemingly because they still believe the Queen was annointed by God to the the Head of State)

http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/AboutUs.htm

[maddezmom]

21. perhaps the 2 are connected?

e Believe that America, God’s last great hope for mankind and stronghold of Christian faith and values, has increasingly come under attack over the years. Should America’s Christian foundation become diluted or engulfed by the forces of darkness, our nation and the world will suffer immeasurably.

e Believe that the standards of Biblical morality (long the protection and strength of the nation), the sanctity of our families, the innocence of our youth, and the moral fiber of our nation are crumbling under the assault of a liberal, humanist ethic and that these forces must be countered and overcome to safeguard our nation from further decline.

e Believe that the forces of moral decay -- sexual promiscuity and perversion, pornography, homosexuality, the disparaging of marriage, family and the role of motherhood and fatherhood – all are rampant in our schools, our culture, government and even in many churches. It seems the only “popular” values left are tolerance of any lifestyle, no matter how deviant it may be, and intolerance of Christian values in the public arena.

e Believe that the message of moral accountability must reach every American and that we must be the “salt of the earth and to “occupy” as Christ has commanded us in order to uplift and restore our nation.

~snip~

more http://www.christianvoiceonline.com/#
click on : What do we Stand For on the left hand side

[Taxloss]

23. If the two are connected, and the British arm believes in the divine right

of the monarch to rule, presumably the American branch would favour bringing the colonies back under the British Crown. Otherwise, wouldn't that be rather inconsistent?

[maddezmom]

24. perhaps the US branch just wants to make * King?

:shrug:

[VegasWolf]

29. Just a thought but the "We Believe that America, God’s last great hope

for mankind" part more be more apt if it was the Middle East
instead of America? Since Islam is the world's largest and
fastest growing religion. Sounds like ethnocentrism.

[Pert_UK]

13. The way I see it.......

You have every right to protest against something if it is personally offensive towards you and/or your religion.

In this instance, I have to say that the protesters have a pretty good case - in the UK you are obliged by LAW to pay over £100 for a TV license each year, and that money goes straight to the BBC to fund its programming (it isn't a commercial channel i.e. no advertising so no advertising revenue). OK, you can choose not to go to the theatre to see this performance, but it must be GUTTING to feel that you are personally subsidising the performance and have no choice in the matter. You don't have to watch it if you don't want to, but to know that you've paid towards a production that depicts your messiah as a shit-obsessed, nappy-wearing weirdo must be a tad annoying to say the least......

However, threats of violence are unjustifiable in this instance, not to mention ironic, coming as they do from men and women of peace.....

[Malva Zebrina]

14. I am just curious as to the distribution

or tax. I assume from your post that citizens are paying that tax that goes toward the BBC. Is that correct?

My next question is--does any tax payer money in the UK go toward funding any religion?

I have a friend in Canada who told me that her Jewish synagogue, receives a certain tax payer grant to fund their school, so I am wondering if there is anything like that also in the UK.

as for the Christians who are threatening violence, in whatever form, speculation on the life of Christ is a valid art form, imo. No one knows in that thirty year period when he falls off the biblical narrative, what he was doing, where he was going, what he was thinking and what he was saying, and therefore it is all guess work--

[Pert_UK]

15. It's not really a tax as such.........

It's a TV license fee, all of which (I believe) goes straight to the BBC. You can be fined for not having one, on the grounds that anybody with a TV can get the BBC channels and therefore you should be paying.

I believe that if you can prove your TV isn't capable of getting the BBC channels then you don't have to pay, but I wouldn't want to try it.

People do often complain that they never watch anything on the BBC and are pretty gutted that they still have to pay the license fee (especially if they also pay for cable TV anyway).

In terms of the governmnet funding churches?.....I believe that there will be a certain amount of funding of various religious activities / groups, including religious schools, but am not really sure about that...Sorry.

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. Religions has some say in running many state schools

How many faith state schools are there in England?
Primary schools - 6,384
Secondary schools - 589
Of these, 4,716 are Church of England, 2,108 Roman Catholic, 32 Jewish, four Muslim, two Sikh, one Greek Orthodox and one Seventh Day Adventist. Until Labour was elected in 1997, all state faith schools were Christian or Jewish.
...
Who pays for them?
You do - if you are a taxpayer. The state pays 85% of capital costs and the government says it is considering raising this to 90%. It also pays the teachers.

What do they teach?
All have to teach the national curriculum. For religious education, around 57% of faith schools (voluntary-aided) teach their own faith. The remaining 43% (voluntary-controlled or foundation schools) teach the locally agreed religious education syllabus, which has a more multi-ethnic approach.

Who can attend faith schools?
Admissions policy is determined by the school governors, but in many cases the local education authority is also involved. A school can insist children come from a particular faith background but it is bound by the Race Relations Act. Popular schools may insist on proof of baptism and regular church attendance. The Church of England urges schools to take account of the local community and make sure wealthier parents from outside the area do not push out local people. "We would suggest that some places should be reserved for children of other faiths and no faith," advises the recent report by Lord Dearing for the church. However, it is the governors' decision.

http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,5500,593365,00.html

I went to one up to the age of 7. In that one, a certain proportion (a quarter?) of the places were for families who attended the Church of England church the school was associated with; the rest of the places went to anyone local, including other religions. English schools are supposed to have some kind of daily 'act of worship' (quite a few, especially secondary schools, don't, I think, but people don't seem to be too worried about that), from which parents can withdraw their children. My CofE school had a prayer in a morning assembly. There wasn't much more religion than that - a nativity play at Christmas, and 'harvest festival' - a bit like Thanksgiving, but it was mainly collecting food for charities.

[bardgal]

25. It's not offensive, it's just BAD - it's two hours of my life I'll never

get back - Saw it in London last xmas. Then went to see Les Miz to get the bad taste out of my psyche.

[Taxloss]

26. Group to act over Springer opera

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4161109.stm

Excerpt:

A Christian group is to bring a private blasphemy prosecution against the BBC after the corporation screened Jerry Springer - The Opera on Saturday.

Prayer group Christian Voice said the hit musical was "totally offensive".

snip

Christian Voice national director Stephen Green said: "If Jerry Springer - The Opera isn't blasphemous then nothing in Britain is sacred."

[muriel_volestrangler]

30. To answer a question asked on a locked duplicate thread

In England, private individuals can bring prosecutions to a court for just about anything, in theory. However, normally the Crown Prosecution Service does it, and of course pays for it. Only if they decide not to, but someone else thinks it worthwhile (as in this case) would a private person do it. The CPS has the right to take over the case, and then drop it:

The CPS will take over and discontinue a private prosecution when:

* There is so little evidence that there is no case to answer; or
* The prosecution falls far below the public interest test in the Code for Crown Prosecutors; or
* The prosecution is likely to damage the interests of justice.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/communications/fs-privatepros.html

The last successful prosecution for blasphemy was in 1977 (for calling Jesus a homosexual, surprise, surprise), and was private. Most people think there will never be another public prosecution - many, including Church of England members (the law only protects CofE beliefs) think the law should be deleted.

[Taxloss]

31. Thanks for that.

I can understand why my original post, was locked, but thought a discussion of English blasphemy law might be interesting, so reproduced it here.

[VegasWolf]

27. "Guards were last night protecting the homes of exec's", hmmm! n/t