Nice...

by Tommy Monk Tue Jul 21, 2015 9:53 pm

Another example of what is rotten about the BBC...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3169157/Viewers-complain-Ofcom-EastEnders-gay-sex-romp-open-coffin.html

All those lefties in there running things and this is the sort Of thing they think is right to broadcast in prime time!!!

How very progressive...!!!

Rotten to the core!!!

by Guest Tue Jul 21, 2015 9:56 pm

would it have made any difference if they were a "straight couple" ?

by Tommy Monk Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:15 pm

I'm sure it would have made a difference to the people who enjoyed this 'scene'...

by Original Quill Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:19 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
I'm sure it would have made a difference to the people who enjoyed this 'scene'...

So, I gather you are saying it's all subjective.

If it's subjective, who made you god to censor for everyone else? If you don't like it, turn the channel.

by Guest Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:21 pm

Don't watch East Enders because I don't like it, but people have open coffins, it's a tradition in the East End, and so called 'gay scenes', so bloody what, it's life - and death.

by Guest Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:23 pm

And actually it's neither 'good tv' or 'morally reprehensible', it's wallpaper that occasionally does something to make people sit up and think.

by Raggamuffin Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:25 pm

I don't watch Eastenders. I could never work who was related and who wasn't. Laughing

by Tommy Monk Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:25 pm

Sickos

by Guest Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:26 pm

personally i find it "objectionable" and tasteless the fact it was a gay couple is utterly irrelevant.
In the same way I would have found it the same if someone decided to chow down in a room with a corpse in it....
or whatever....

as usual tommy you are spouting your nasty agenda once again.....and think us homo sapiens sapiens cant see through it...

(you by the way are homo sapiens only)

by Raggamuffin Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:27 pm

It does sound a bit desperate tbh. Some of the storylines in soaps are like that these days.

by Ben Reilly Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:34 pm

Sounds like exactly what it was, a huge publicity stunt that worked Smile

by Raggamuffin Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:35 pm

It wouldn't make me watch Eastenders though.

by Tommy Monk Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:38 pm

Family viewing...!?

I see the lefties can't bring themselves to condemn this...

And even seem to be supporting it...

by Guest Tue Jul 21, 2015 11:04 pm

statisticaly most people have sex after a funeral although during it is perhaps a bit much
however i don`t watch drivel and mind-numbing pretend social voyeurism so really have no comment
ether way

by Tommy Monk Tue Jul 21, 2015 11:09 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:
I'm sure it would have made a difference to the people who enjoyed this 'scene'...

So, I gather you are saying it's all subjective.

If it's subjective, who made you god to censor for everyone else? If you don't like it, turn the channel.

Not me... the BBC is a public service broadcaster and should be abiding by its own rules of decency and should not be showing gay soft porn round a corpse on a prime time family viewed popular show!!!

Honestly... how far have some of you slipped in your views of right and wrong to not be condemning this!!!???

I think some of you must be brainwashed to not see a problem with this on many levels...!

by Guest Tue Jul 21, 2015 11:27 pm

I have taken the liberty of correcting your post to what, in any decent society it SHOULD say

quote Tommy monk

"Not me... the BBC is a public service broadcaster and should be abiding by its own rules of decency and should not be showing ~~gay~~ soft porn round a corpse on a prime time family viewed popular show!!!

Honestly... how far have some of you slipped in your views of right and wrong to not be condemning this!!!???

I think some of you must be brainwashed to not see a problem with this on many levels...!"

by Guest Tue Jul 21, 2015 11:28 pm

funny init how Tommy can find any reason for a bit of gay bashing...

what a sicko......

by Raggamuffin Tue Jul 21, 2015 11:31 pm

There were complaints when Marcus and Todd got down to it on Corrie as well. Laughing

by Guest Tue Jul 21, 2015 11:39 pm

I bet if it had been a straight couple tommy would have had his todger out..... Nice... 1132368643

by Raggamuffin Tue Jul 21, 2015 11:42 pm

Well I voted that it was disgusting and morally reprehensible. I don't think it's nice to show people cavorting around an open coffin. Surprised

by Tommy Monk Tue Jul 21, 2015 11:43 pm

And here we have the Lefties refusing to condemn it BECAUSE it was gays doing it!!!

As if that somehow makes it more 'right'...?

Or a trump card over the lefties preventing them for condemning anything 'gay' as wrong...!!!???

BBC showing this sex round a corpse on prime time family viewed soap is either right or wrong...!!!

by Guest Tue Jul 21, 2015 11:43 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Well I voted that it was disgusting and morally reprehensible. I don't think it's nice to show people cavorting around an open coffin.

of ANY "orientation"

by Tommy Monk Tue Jul 21, 2015 11:45 pm

But lefties can't condemn it because it was a couple of gays... their brains are in a straight jacket... brainwashed!!!

by Guest Tue Jul 21, 2015 11:53 pm

I think you will find i did that...NOT because it is gays , but because it is simply wrong, as ragga puts it so delicately, to be "cavorting" around a corpse

the orientation of the couple doing said cavorting is irrelevant

as YOU WELL KNOW....

but any excuse for a bit of "queer bashing" eh Tommy

as usual you are just a big fail....

by Eilzel Wed Jul 22, 2015 1:06 am

Game of Thrones last year showed a scene where an incestuous couple (Jamie and Cersei Lannister) had sex beside their son's dead body. To make that worse, the man technically raped the woman.

I don't recall tommy's outrage then- so why now?

by veya_victaous Wed Jul 22, 2015 1:14 am

I answered good TV but I didn't really understand the question... Suspect

I think that if you watch TV you deserve what you get geek

by Ben Reilly Wed Jul 22, 2015 1:33 am

We don't get this show in the U.S., but I was just reading about it and the show has also depicted pedophile grooming, a man being buried alive by his wife and her lover, a woman swapping her dead newborn for another woman's baby and numerous scenes of domestic violence.

I'd think those scenes would be far less suitable for children than a scene that, near as I can tell, involved a shirtless kiss in front of a body in a coffin scratch

by Eilzel Wed Jul 22, 2015 1:43 am

Very good point Ben. But to people who object to homosexuality- murder, rape, child abuse, 'heterosexual' paedophilia etc are all perfectly acceptible prime time viewing, two men kissing though, in any setting, eww no way!

by Ben Reilly Wed Jul 22, 2015 2:12 am

Eilzel wrote:Very good point Ben. But to people who object to homosexuality- murder, rape, child abuse, 'heterosexual' paedophilia etc are all perfectly acceptible prime time viewing, two men kissing though, in any setting, eww no way!

True. As though by keeping kids from seeing two dudes kissing, there is some small hope that they might live their entire lives never knowing of the existence of gay people Smile

Of course, there are lots of weird people who think violence in TV/movies is fine, just as long as there's no sex or cursing. Never really understood that.

by Guest Wed Jul 22, 2015 2:14 am

Eilzel wrote:Very good point Ben. But to people who object to homosexuality- murder, rape, child abuse, 'heterosexual' paedophilia etc are all perfectly acceptible prime time viewing, two men kissing though, in any setting, eww no way!

my tv`s have off buttons and the ability to change channel i thought(sarcasticly because i know)all tv`s had this feature and if Tommy thinks this s confined to the BBC then he is as uninformed as we all believe he is

But its the BBC so Tommy naturally wants to bleat about it its what he does and labour ,gays, and just like his comment about "the leftys" not commenting on this i did not see him making any comments on the gold thread i started and how what gorden browns decision to do what he did was an effort to help the banks ,who because of there own fault and greed had got them self`s overextended and that went on to cause the banking collapse brown got the blame for

in fact the RW on this site have`nt made any comment on that

by Eilzel Wed Jul 22, 2015 2:42 am

^Ben, that's often made me think too actually, people are funny in what they object to and what they don't.

^KD, tommy will only ever comment on things that confirm his own world view, he is scared of ever having to think he might be wrong.

by Original Quill Wed Jul 22, 2015 4:39 am

Eilzel wrote:
^KD, tommy will only ever comment on things that confirm his own world view, he is scared of ever having to think he might be wrong.

That's my point. He admits--even offers--that it is subjective, and then wastes our time about his own subjectivity.

WTF...if it's subjective, STFU! Waddaya need consensus? Nobody's interested.

by Guest Wed Jul 22, 2015 8:17 am

Original Quill wrote:
Eilzel wrote:
^KD, tommy will only ever comment on things that confirm his own world view, he is scared of ever having to think he might be wrong.

That's my point. He admits--even offers--that it is subjective, and then wastes our time about his own subjectivity.

WTF...if it's subjective, STFU! Waddaya need consensus? Nobody's interested.

Tommy often has difficulty with the meaning of words so i try my best to help and post the meaning although i get the impression he doesn't appreciate it

@tommy
subjective
existing in the mind; belonging to the subject rather than the object of thought

by Guest Wed Jul 22, 2015 8:27 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:We don't get this show in the U.S., but I was just reading about it and the show has also depicted pedophile grooming, a man being buried alive by his wife and her lover, a woman swapping her dead newborn for another woman's baby and numerous scenes of domestic violence.

I'd think those scenes would be far less suitable for children than a scene that, near as I can tell, involved a shirtless kiss in front of a body in a coffin

Consider yourself fortunate!

I haven't watched any soaps for about ten years they are all
mindless drivel

by Guest Wed Jul 22, 2015 8:36 am

Nems wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:We don't get this show in the U.S., but I was just reading about it and the show has also depicted pedophile grooming, a man being buried alive by his wife and her lover, a woman swapping her dead newborn for another woman's baby and numerous scenes of domestic violence.

I'd think those scenes would be far less suitable for children than a scene that, near as I can tell, involved a shirtless kiss in front of a body in a coffin

Consider yourself fortunate!

I haven't watched any soaps for about ten years they are all
mindless drivel

by groomsy Wed Jul 22, 2015 8:37 am

Tommy Monk wrote:
Family viewing...!?

I see the lefties can't bring themselves to condemn this...

And even seem to be supporting it...

whats to condemn? animals have gay sex in the wild, guess what humans are still animals

by Guest Wed Jul 22, 2015 9:54 am

ps
i haven`t voted as there isn`t a couldn`t give a toss option

by Guest Wed Jul 22, 2015 10:36 am

Sounds sensible LOL

by Raggamuffin Wed Jul 22, 2015 10:50 am

Eilzel wrote:^Ben, that's often made me think too actually, people are funny in what they object to and what they don't.

^KD, tommy will only ever comment on things that confirm his own world view, he is scared of ever having to think he might be wrong.

I would say that applies to most people here. Laughing

by Raggamuffin Wed Jul 22, 2015 10:51 am

Five people have voted that the scene is "good TV". You must watch some drivel if that's the case. Laughing

by Raggamuffin Wed Jul 22, 2015 10:56 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:We don't get this show in the U.S., but I was just reading about it and the show has also depicted pedophile grooming, a man being buried alive by his wife and her lover, a woman swapping her dead newborn for another woman's baby and numerous scenes of domestic violence.

I'd think those scenes would be far less suitable for children than a scene that, near as I can tell, involved a shirtless kiss in front of a body in a coffin

I think the swapping of the dead baby was the last storyline I watched. The thought of Kat's screeching when she found out what Ronnie had done was too much to bear. Laughing

by Guest Wed Jul 22, 2015 12:58 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Eilzel wrote:^Ben, that's often made me think too actually, people are funny in what they object to and what they don't.

^KD, tommy will only ever comment on things that confirm his own world view, he is scared of ever having to think he might be wrong.

I would say that applies to most people here.

i would disagree with that view,as most on hear have a scientific view and if you can show evidence for a view it is generally accepted your confusing a consensus of a view with belligerence of a view

by Raggamuffin Wed Jul 22, 2015 1:02 pm

korban dallas wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I would say that applies to most people here.
i would disagree with that view,as most on hear have a scientific view and if you can show evidence for a view it is generally accepted your confusing a consensus of a view with belligerence of a view

No they don't - they have an opinion like everyone else, and they are generally unwilling or unable to change that opinion. For example, someone might start a thread about austerity, and they are never going to see things any way other than the way they saw them at the start.

by Guest Wed Jul 22, 2015 1:15 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
korban dallas wrote:
i would disagree with that view,as most on hear have a scientific view and if you can show evidence for a view it is generally accepted your confusing a consensus of a view with belligerence of a view

No they don't - they have an opinion like everyone else, and they are generally unwilling or unable to change that opinion. For example, someone might start a thread about austerity, and they are never going to see things any way other than the way they saw them at the start.

Well yes they do opinion based in reality and presentable facts as opposed to dogged refusal to accept what is in front of there nose and go of on hypothetical tangents to try and justify there view

for example i was against All fox hunting but victor made some very good and valid points i changed my view ,myself and didge where in a very combative place at one point he made some very valid points as did i and we both changed out view and that has been i think very productive

you can have as many "opinions " about a fact as you like but only evidence, not opinion can change that "fact"

by Raggamuffin Wed Jul 22, 2015 1:27 pm

korban dallas wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

No they don't - they have an opinion like everyone else, and they are generally unwilling or unable to change that opinion. For example, someone might start a thread about austerity, and they are never going to see things any way other than the way they saw them at the start.
Well yes they do opinion based in reality and presentable facts as opposed to dogged refusal to accept what is in front of there nose and go of on hypothetical tangents to try and justify there view

for example i was against All fox hunting but victor made some very good and valid points i changed my view ,myself and didge where in a very combative place at one point he made some very valid points as did i and we both changed out view and that has been i think very productive

you can have as many "opinions " about a fact as you like but only evidence, not opinion can change that "fact"

Victor pursuaded you to support fox hunting? Do you mean hunting with dogs for sport? He told me he was opposed to that.

by Guest Wed Jul 22, 2015 1:50 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
korban dallas wrote:
Well yes they do opinion based in reality and presentable facts as opposed to dogged refusal to accept what is in front of there nose and go of on hypothetical tangents to try and justify there view

for example i was against All fox hunting but victor made some very good and valid points i changed my view ,myself and didge where in a very combative place at one point he made some very valid points as did i and we both changed out view and that has been i think very productive

you can have as many "opinions " about a fact as you like but only evidence, not opinion can change that "fact"

Victor pursuaded you to support fox hunting? Do you mean hunting with dogs for sport? He told me he was opposed to that.

yes your problem seems to be you don`t read stuff properly then you make a bullshit comment that actually bears no resemblance to what i actually said

hear let me help you

all
ɔːl/
predeterminer, determiner, & pronoun
determiner: all; pronoun: all
1.
used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing.

so what part of "i was against All fox hunting " do you find difficult to understand

by Raggamuffin Wed Jul 22, 2015 1:53 pm

korban dallas wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Victor pursuaded you to support fox hunting? Do you mean hunting with dogs for sport? He told me he was opposed to that.
yes your problem seems to be you don`t read stuff properly then you make a bullshit comment that actually bears no resemblance to what i actually sad

hear let me help you

all
ɔːl/
predeterminer, determiner, & pronoun
determiner: all; pronoun: all
1.
used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing.

so what part of "i was against All fox hunting " do you find difficult to understand

You clearly didn't read my post properly. How could Victor pursuade you to support hunting with dogs when he's opposed to it himself?

Fox hunting could mean shooting them, which is why I asked if you meant hunting with dogs for sport.

by Guest Wed Jul 22, 2015 2:04 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
korban dallas wrote:
yes your problem seems to be you don`t read stuff properly then you make a bullshit comment that actually bears no resemblance to what i actually sad

hear let me help you

all
ɔːl/
predeterminer, determiner, & pronoun
determiner: all; pronoun: all
1.
used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing.

so what part of "i was against All fox hunting " do you find difficult to understand

You clearly didn't read my post properly. How could Victor pursuade you to support hunting with dogs when he's opposed to it himself?

Fox hunting could mean shooting them, which is why I asked if you meant hunting with dogs for sport.

no your just being a idiot on purpose no doubt

you have introduced dogs then trying to make a issue of it where none exists

if somebody says they are against all fox hunting that means with dogs with guns or going around clubbing them on the head with a bloody tea cup
victor made the case for shooting them to control there numbers not for sport and not with dogs you have decided to twist it to cause what a argument ?

well if that what you want sweetheart bring it on if you want to be deliberately obtuse i am more than happy to oblige
but be very careful what you wish for your chances of getting it are pretty high

by Raggamuffin Wed Jul 22, 2015 2:07 pm

korban dallas wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You clearly didn't read my post properly. How could Victor pursuade you to support hunting with dogs when he's opposed to it himself?

Fox hunting could mean shooting them, which is why I asked if you meant hunting with dogs for sport.
no your just being a idiot on purpose no doubt

you have introduced dogs then trying to make a issue of it where none exists

if somebody says they are against all fox hunting that means with dogs with guns or going around clubbing them on the head with a bloody tea cup
victor made the case for shooting them to control there numbers not for sport and not with dogs you have decided to twist it to cause what a argument ?

well if that what you want sweetheart bring it on if you want to be deliberately obtuse i am more than happy to oblige
but be very careful what you wish for your chances of getting it are pretty high

You said "fox hunting", so I was merely trying to clarify what you meant by that. There's nothing idiotic about that - it's called being accurate - something you clearly don't understand.

The trouble is that when people talk about hunting with dogs for sport, they often just call it "fox hunting". Why you have to make such an issue out of it is a mystery.

by Raggamuffin Wed Jul 22, 2015 2:10 pm

Oh, and if anyone's creating an argument, it's you. I replied to Les, and it was you who jumped in to start an argument with me.

by Sponsored content

Good tv, or disgusting and morally reprehensible?