Comments on: The Shavian adjective

The Shavian adjective

tellurian — Thu, 09 Mar 2006 20:44:52 -0800

So where here the b****y hell are you? has been banned from UK TV screens by the BACC (Thanks a b****y lot) for being offensive even though a study (Language and Sexual Imagery in Broadcasting: A Contextual Investigation) [PDF] released by Ofcom in September 2005 found that b****y was "Not really offensive to any group, seen as everyday sort of language". This from the nation that brought us Little Britain [NSFW]. Some banned advertising still lives on though.

By: smackfu

smackfu — Thu, 09 Mar 2006 20:56:22 -0800

Ha! I thought it was b-itch-y.

By: wfrgms

wfrgms — Thu, 09 Mar 2006 20:57:36 -0800

Am I reading that right: "So where here(?) bloody hell are you?" Becuase that bloody well doesn't make sense.

By: tellurian

tellurian — Thu, 09 Mar 2006 21:01:56 -0800

hear, hear! wfrgms, I blew it.

By: Malor

Malor — Thu, 09 Mar 2006 21:14:40 -0800

I did too, smackfu. :)

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Thu, 09 Mar 2006 21:15:44 -0800

I've always wondered why 'bloody' is perceived as a 'bad word' in some Commonwealth countries. It seems so... quaint in a world where little old ladies are yelling 'eat shit, motherfucker' out their little-old-lady-car windows and elementary school kids are emailing each other goatse links between hits off the crack pipe. Still, quaint isn't necessarily a bad thing.

By: cillit bang

cillit bang — Thu, 09 Mar 2006 21:16:31 -0800

A study released by Ofcom in September 2005 that b****y was "Not really offensive to any group, seen as everyday sort of language" The actual BACC guidelines (BACC are the people that rejected the ad) says advertisers should refer to the ITC's Delete Expletives? study. It says:

When the use of swearing and offensive language in television advertisements was addressed, it was found that participants were far less tolerant. Even words that were considered relatively mild in themselves were thought to be unacceptable in commercials. Ninety two per cent of respondents agreed with the current policy that says there should be no swearing or offensive language used in television advertisements at all.

So the ad being rejected is completely not surprising and the policy is not new.

By: Atreides

Atreides — Thu, 09 Mar 2006 21:16:35 -0800

Bloody Hell...

By: Mijo Bijo

Mijo Bijo — Thu, 09 Mar 2006 21:25:12 -0800

Cheeky bastards.

By: ColdChef

ColdChef — Thu, 09 Mar 2006 21:28:18 -0800

F**k those s**t-eating d************s.

By: Effigy2000

Effigy2000 — Thu, 09 Mar 2006 21:32:25 -0800

Whilst I normally highly enjoy anything that brings embarrassment to the Howard Government, I think that this ban is a bit rich coming from a nation that gave us Ali-G, Benny Hill and, as the original poster has said, the incredibly unfunny Little Britain. Which is why the obvious explanation behind this decision is that the UK is sick of all of its tourists coming to Australia and spending money here when they could be touring their own country and spending money at home. Who knows? Maybe that would be a good thing. Less of them getting knocked off on lonely outback highway roads can't be bad, surely?

By: Vervain

Vervain — Thu, 09 Mar 2006 21:38:44 -0800

Only adults like us are allowed to say 'damn', 'bitch', 'ass' and 'hell'. So get your helling damnin' ass back in that bitchin' damn room, dammit! ...Damn, what? I was just helping you out, bitch!

By: delmoi

delmoi — Thu, 09 Mar 2006 21:43:28 -0800

Is "bloody" really a 'bad' word in england? I always figured it was just something people said, like "crap". Although in Pygmalion one character says the word is bad. Hmm...

By: UbuRoivas

UbuRoivas — Thu, 09 Mar 2006 21:47:29 -0800

Bloody poms.

By: tellurian

tellurian — Thu, 09 Mar 2006 21:53:57 -0800

That's an interesting read cillit bang, thanks for setting me straight on that. 'Bloody' just beats 'God' and gets pipped by 'Crap'. I see that 'Nigger' (11th to 5th) and 'Paki' (17th to 10th) are racing up the charts.

By: wsg

wsg — Thu, 09 Mar 2006 22:12:24 -0800

ROTHFLMAO at the next to last link.

By: MrMustard

MrMustard — Thu, 09 Mar 2006 23:08:48 -0800

They lost me at, 'We've poured you a beer.' Australian beer? No thanks.

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Thu, 09 Mar 2006 23:11:09 -0800

There are many superb Australian beers.

By: [expletive deleted]

[expletive deleted] — Thu, 09 Mar 2006 23:12:05 -0800

I'm sure I don't need to elucidate my views on the subject.

By: dangerousdan

dangerousdan — Thu, 09 Mar 2006 23:26:21 -0800

Good to see News Radio has an audience on Metafilter.

By: furtive

furtive — Thu, 09 Mar 2006 23:36:32 -0800

You BASTARDS! You vicious, heartless, bastards! [.mp3]

By: MrMustard

MrMustard — Thu, 09 Mar 2006 23:38:42 -0800

stavrosthewonderchicken - They obviously keep them in Australia then.

By: Thoth

Thoth — Fri, 10 Mar 2006 00:11:52 -0800

www.coopers.com.au MrMustard. Blight them, and I may have to kill you.

By: bunglin jones

bunglin jones — Fri, 10 Mar 2006 00:14:41 -0800

Well, we sent Little Creatures Pale Ale your way, MrMustard and a lot of people seemed to like it (see the reviews and awards section)

By: PeterMcDermott

PeterMcDermott — Fri, 10 Mar 2006 00:55:14 -0800

Is "bloody" really a 'bad' word in england? I always figured it was just something people said, like "crap". Not really. It's probably regarded as less offensive than "crap". The peculiar thing is that the guidelines ban the word 'bloody' from the commercials, then when the real programme comes back on, you can hear as many cocksucking, motherfucking cunts as you please -- after the watershed anyway.

By: PeterMcDermott

PeterMcDermott — Fri, 10 Mar 2006 00:58:52 -0800

So the ad being rejected is completely not surprising and the policy is not new. Nor is it surprising. After all, you'll get a warning that a particular TV show may contain strong language, and so you can choose to watch it, or not. If they had to insert warnings before the commercials, the things would be on all fucking night.

By: Foaf

Foaf — Fri, 10 Mar 2006 01:40:45 -0800

I had a Coopers today and it was delicious. Mr Mustard, is your opinion of Australian beer based on Fosters? Or do you prefer a warmer pint of ale than you'd traditionally find in Australia?

By: Foaf

Foaf — Fri, 10 Mar 2006 01:42:08 -0800

I also saw the Australia.com ad today on NZ TV. What the bloody hell is wrong with it?

By: X-00

X-00 — Fri, 10 Mar 2006 01:53:52 -0800

When the campaign was first launched I recall hearing that it was deveopled by the same people that did New Zealand's "100% pure" campaign (Hows that for a trans-tasman jap) and that "bloody" would be removed from the ad when shown in "muslim" countries.

By: loquacious

loquacious — Fri, 10 Mar 2006 02:10:40 -0800

Obscenity is the crutch of an inarticulate motherfucker.

By: srboisvert

srboisvert — Fri, 10 Mar 2006 03:24:43 -0800

CityTV in toronto used to always bleep the mother portion of motherfucker out. Never failed to make me laugh.

By: languagehat

languagehat — Fri, 10 Mar 2006 05:26:46 -0800

Bloody used to be (before, say, WWII) an extremely bad word in the UK; my understanding is that pretty much only the elderly are bothered by it these days. Here's the OED's take on it, written back in the 1880s:

2. As an intensive: Very....and no mistake, exceedingly; abominably, desperately. In general colloquial use from the Restoration to c 1750; 'now constantly in the mouths of the lowest classes, but by respectable people considered 'a horrid word', on a par with obscene or profane language, and usually printed in the newspapers (in police reports, etc.) "b―y"'. [The origin is not quite certain; but there is good reason to think that it was at first a reference to the habits of the 'bloods' or aristocratic rowdies of the end of the 17th and beginning of the 18th c. The phrase 'bloody drunk' was apparently = 'as drunk as a blood' (cf. 'as drunk as a lord'); thence it was extended to kindred expressions, and at length to others; probably, in later times, its associations with bloodshed and murder (cf. a bloody battle, a bloody butcher) have recommended it to the rough classes as a word that appeals to their imagination. We may compare the prevalent craving for impressive or graphic intensives, seen in the use of jolly, awfully, terribly, devilish, deuced, damned, ripping, rattling, thumping, stunning, thundering, etc. There is no ground for the notion that 'bloody', offensive as from associations it now is to ears polite, contains any profane allusion or has connexion with the oath ''s blood!']

This citation is a reminder of the force it had less than a century ago: 1914 Shaw Pygmalion 111, Liza. Walk! Not bloody likely. (Sensation). I am going in a taxi. There literally was a sensation when that line was spoken, and Shaw had to fight to keep the word in. Even as late as 1938, when the play was filmed, according to IMDb it was "the first British film to use the word 'bloody' in its dialogue." The past is a foreign country.

By: fungible

fungible — Fri, 10 Mar 2006 06:01:45 -0800

They should just start cursing in Jamaican patois, which is much more vicious but no one will understand it anyway. Steenkin rahsclaat battymahn!

By: schoolgirl report

schoolgirl report — Fri, 10 Mar 2006 06:40:30 -0800

I think my eye must have jumped to the Little Britain in your post, because I immediately translated b****y as "bitty."

By: stinkycheese

stinkycheese — Fri, 10 Mar 2006 09:31:07 -0800

My five-year-old gets very upset when my English in-laws say bloody. As they are wont to do with alarming frequency.

By: MrMustard

MrMustard — Fri, 10 Mar 2006 13:03:17 -0800

OK, OK, it appears I'm being a little harsh on Ozzie beer. That said, bunglin jones' link admits, 'Little Creatures Pale Ale is a world away from the Aussie beer we are used to in Britain.' Australian beer in the UK (and yes Foaf, I do mean Fosters and her ilk, and I'm aware they're brewed in the UK) is, by and large, known as 'sheep dip' or 'having sex in a canoe'. Neither of these is complimentary.

By: Samuel Farrow

Samuel Farrow — Fri, 10 Mar 2006 15:16:37 -0800

The other PR agency in the group I work for is managing the below the line campaign in New Zealand, this story has meant the campaign has obtained a second round of media articles mostly criticising the Bloody British. This is great for the campign in New Zealand, and important as I would imagine that New Zealanders are the single biggest group of tourists to Australia. (The Ozzies are for us).

By: Blue Stone

Blue Stone — Fri, 10 Mar 2006 18:53:23 -0800

I was under the impression that 'bloody' had something to do with the blood of Christ.

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Fri, 10 Mar 2006 19:41:43 -0800

Come to think of it, I believe you're right, Blue Stone. The religious link is what makes it a Big Swear.

By: synkro

synkro — Fri, 10 Mar 2006 19:45:20 -0800

I would much prefer they tried to ban ads based on a scaling stupidity factor rather than the use of an inoffensive word. At one point I thought if I saw another Crazy Frog ad I would commit homicide. Where are our priorities? Won't somebody think of the children?

By: wilful

wilful — Sat, 11 Mar 2006 02:30:06 -0800

Australian beer in the UK (and yes Foaf, I do mean Fosters and her ilk, and I'm aware they're brewed in the UK) is, by and large, known as 'sheep dip' or 'having sex in a canoe'. Neither of these is complimentary. Of course you do realise that Fosters basically isn't drunk in Australia? Terrible stuff.

By: languagehat

languagehat — Sat, 11 Mar 2006 05:49:45 -0800

Blue Stone, stavros: Read my OED quote. Here, I'll highlight the relevant bit at the end: There is no ground for the notion that 'bloody', offensive as from associations it now is to ears polite, contains any profane allusion or has connexion with the oath ''s blood!' In other words, it's a good story but it ain't so.