After faithfully watching every episode of the ITV thriller, ‘Viewpoint’, for this last week even to the extent of missing a couple of favourites (fortunately able to see them later), I was really looking forward to the climax of the series last night and duly set the reminder.
Then the star was accused, not convicted, of inappropriate behaviour with several women, and ITV has decided that those of us who can’t watch ITV Hub, or whatever it is called, are too delicate to watch an actor who may be a bit touchy feely.
I doubt that it will affect me too much, but I am really angry that the slightest whiff of scandal should cause this ridiculous over the top reaction.
Now, if anyone here has a problem with any one of the cast of ‘Line of Duty’, can you please keep it to yourselves until Monday?
I don’t know, but I am assuming that it is the same as the BBC iPlayer, which, though apparently legal for residents of France is disapproved of and, so I have heard and read, is subject to blocking if the BBC, or whoever, finds out what you are doing.
If I am wrong, no doubt you will tell me how I can connect to it without fear that something nasty will happen.
All of which has nothing to do with my point that ITV penalised millions of viewers and possibly the earnings of the rest of the cast on alleged wrongdoings by one person.
Sorry I disagree. This episode can be shown at a later date, but I felt it appropriate that ITV put the potential issue of mass assault on women above an evening’s entertainment.
May be is innocent, maybe not (the fact that he seems to have accepted he needs treatment suggests not). However the Broadcasting company had to make an instant judgement before all facts are known. I am happy that they took the alleged victim’s side as that sends quite a powerful message.
There are geographic restrictions for BBC, ITV, Channel 4 etc which I would imagine extends to iplayer, ITV Player & More 4 - but also to Satellite watching but is way more difficult to enforce for Freesat.
With a VPN you can watch all of the online services on Ipad, PC etc-and am not sure is any more wrong than watching on Freeview.
It would be interesting to hear other members views on this.
I do have one concern about all of this - or maybe two, which is social media means that people are now taken as guilty and they lose their reputation and livelihood before any case has been proven. That’s dangerous territory.
Secondly, (as Germaine Greer said some time ago) there is a world of difference between rape and just bad sex and I really don’t understand why women feel incapable of dealing with the “bad sex” in whatever form it takes, then and there, in the moment, so that the man knows the direct implications of his behaviour. I’m glad I grew up before social media - I learnt from teens onwards to put men who were sexually crude/inept/aggressive in their place and wouldn’t expect anyone else to do it for me and certainly wouldn’t have expected the man to lose his job.
Nowadays you can’t say what you would have said before Sue.
Look where guilty before trial got the Metropolitan Police with Operation Midland, even though these were people who had an extremely high profile and, more than likely, better connected than Noel Clarke.
May not be more wrong, but it is free. Also not a deliberate act to get round whatever level of transgression it is, that is actively pretending you are not in another country.
Sorry I disagree. This episode can be shown at a later date, but I felt it appropriate that ITV put the potential issue of mass assault on women above an evening’s entertainment.
Mass assault? Potential issue? What on earth has he done that means that a programme in which he was involved should not be watched? We don’t know of course.
Perhaps ITV should ban any programmes in which Boris Johnson has appeared?
possibly the earnings of the rest of the cast on alleged wrongdoings by one person.
[/quote]
How is this so?
I always assumed that actors get paid each time something is shown on tv. I have no idea if it is true or not, hence the use of ‘possibly’.
@SuePJ . I go along in general with what you say, and it is indeed dangerous territory, but my main point is that this amounts to little more than censorship. That is what really upset me. Which is why I made the joke about Johnson above. Is every film that Harvey Weinstein was involved with in some way now banned?
Anyway, due to the kindness of someone who knows what they are doing, I have seen the episode now.
Not in the sense that I am pretending to whatever authority which might be interested that I am living in the UK, of course not. If the BBC want to ask me where I live I will answer truthfully.
Anyway, my 80cm dish was spotted by me in the dechetterie and quite legally removed by agreement for free. And this was before I had any inclination that my, current at the time, 60 cm dish would soon not work. Still don’t know.
Anyway, whatever the reasons it is still censorship. I remember a time when you couldn’t download Kindle books from Amazon UK if you weren’t in the UK. I got round that when I found out that as long as you didn’t make multiple orders it was ok, and never had a problem. But some people got re-directed to the American site, which didn’t always have the books required.
Agreed, and I do struggle with some of the things recounted where I would have just walked out. But this is more about bullying and coercion? Which can lead to bad sex, but not always. I am a pretty assertive person, always have been, but was abused as a young person by someone who had power over me and that type of coercion is very hard to rebut.
@andyw Thoroughly agree with all of that, without evidence or trial but even with it perhaps in the fullness of time, this programme should not have been pulled. I have seen it now and there is nothing in it even remotely connected to or reminiscent of, the offences alleged.
How do we know Jane? I certainly haven’t seen evidence but even if I had it shouldn’t make any difference to the removing or otherwise of the programme. What he did or didn’t do off screen shouldn’t have any bearing on fiction acted out in a thriller, especially as the actor concerned’s character was not involved in anything of the sort. Quite the opposite in fact but I will say no more as some people may be able to see it later.
As far as personal previous experience is concerned mentioned above, I too have been subjected to both sexual and physical abuse. The first I laughed off and moved away but left the person concerned in no doubt that it was not welcome and should not happen again, it didn’t. The second was much more serious, severe danger of injury to say the least but the police who were called to help me found it a great joke that a man should be threatened by a ‘mere’ woman.
Programmes are postponed because someone has died, because the subject matter of the programme is in the news, because there is a court case about copyright, or plagiarism. It happens, and happens relatively frequently. In 99% of cases the programme is rescheduled and whatever the issue was is forgotten.
I think to err on the side of caution is acceptable. The power of the media is such that sometimes things are done that would not be the case if the person was an accountant.
Also not a deliberate act to get round whatever level of transgression it is, that is actively pretending you are not in another country.
