This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Here it is. I'm still having no luck with it - I get redirected to [1], which looks like, but isn't, a standard Microsoft web server error page.
I think the misterharold web server's set up to hobble direct-linking to images stored on it, because I can get the image if I search for it on the main page of the website.
Could a few people please check and verify this? (Make sure you're not getting a cached image when checking this out.)
I'm going to remove the link again in the meantime.
Gypsum Fantastic 00:00, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
David Blunkett is unlikely to ever see the programme in question. Zik-Zak 17:55, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
(<-)Bonce is a rather old-fashioned slang word for head. None of the others are! 94.195.129.125 ( talk) 00:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm inclined to think that the lists of celebs merely mentioned is overly enthusiastic, However, I know some people like such things. But I wondered if anyone had the nous to put all that info in a table of some sort. It would look a lot better if it used the width of the page a bit more. Perhaps the 6 episodes in a 3 column by 2 row grid (or four rows if you have a divide between featured and mentioned)? Anyone know how to do it? -- bodnotbod 10:32, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
I would agree with localzuk. The bit about mentioned celebrities is silly and they should all have a seperate article. Of course I won't do this myself but it would be greatly apreciated if someone did. User:Kevin Granther
Well-done article, congratulations to the editors. Made me laugh, too. Herostratus 20:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I recall watching the programme and distinctly remember one element was a shot of a group of children with a man approaching them wearing a 'building' costume, accompanied by the voice of Chris Morris saying "Paedophiles have also been known to disguise themselves as actual schools in order to attract innocent children". Can anyone confirm this and possibly provide a screen-grab, as I believe it give a pertinent summary to the programme and its satirical aims. Bigpinkthing - Feb 14 2006
Is it worth putting anything in about Channel 4's cynical decision to screen the Pedophile episode late at night then again the very next day after the (inevitable) tabloid hysteria when all the disgusted's of Tunbridge Wells would be sure to tune in to view the "sick filth" themselves (having completely missed the original screening).-- ElvisThePrince 15:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Is there anything to back this up? It seems pretty absurd to me.
82.5.68.95 ( talk) 14:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Play.com lists 2 Brass Eye DVDs, one set for release in August 2007 - does anyone know anymore about this?
It seems un-encyclopedic to mention that the articles in the Daily Star and Daily Mail ran next to stories that might be seen as pedophilic (I know that's not a word), it seems like an extension of the "some people say" routine that is also used in that section to interject the author's personal opinion while maintaining the illusion of objectivity. It all seems very Fox News to me.
The part about about the series being postponed because of the pulp/myra hindly sketch is wrong. The show was actually postponed because of legal issues surrounding the cake fiasco. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben the mighty ( talk • contribs) 12:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
-- Ben the mighty 14:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I've cut this line, which was sitting on its own at the end of the section without any context:
"It is noted that the word "Reconstruction" appears over five times, often for the same scene."
Noted by whom? Appears where? Over five times? It sounds like this might be true and possibly even relevant, but I've frankly got no idea what it's on about. If you understand it, could you work it into the article somewhere that flows and makes sense? 81.107.32.231 ( talk) 15:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The transcript link gives a 403 for me. If the link isn't going to be usable for anyone, should we just remove it? D4g0thur 16:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Above someone has already brought up the "none of the celebrities realised tehy were being lampooned" statement, but there are several more statements-of-fact which are presented without any qualification or attempt to attribute them to a reliable source.
Please bear in mind Pillars of Wikipedia.
For me references to the ironic nature of the tabloids reporting of pedogeddon are an issue. Ironic is an opinion. We need to state ironic according to whom, and provide a citation to statements of their ironic-nature - not links to page-scans and assume the reader is astute or like-minded enough to reach the same conclusion as yourself.-- ZayZayEM ( talk) 07:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
The Daily Mail article itself was probably:
royals have been out making the most of the sunshine. Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie donned bikinis for a dip in the Med on a family holiday. The Duchess of York joined in the fun in a black one-piece swimsuit as the trio dived from the bows of the launch Black Silver during a cruise off St Tropez at the weekend.
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |archivedate=
(
help)the date matches, although the Highbeam mirror is without photographs for confirmation. — Sladen ( talk) 13:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I have recently moved the brief passage on the paedophile and convicted child murderer Sidney Cooke from his own article. As there has been a minor, slow, edit war on this issue for a while, I have added an extended explanation of my reasoning on that article's talk page. As those who consider it legitimate to add a reference to Brass Eye to Cooke's article are more likely to be watching this page, I invite them to contribute to the discussion on the other talk page. Philip Cross ( talk) 17:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I have left this here because it's not that relevant to the episodes, as they are self explanatory. Who was in them, is not. 81.141.61.191 ( talk) 13:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
|
|
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Here it is. I'm still having no luck with it - I get redirected to [1], which looks like, but isn't, a standard Microsoft web server error page.
I think the misterharold web server's set up to hobble direct-linking to images stored on it, because I can get the image if I search for it on the main page of the website.
Could a few people please check and verify this? (Make sure you're not getting a cached image when checking this out.)
I'm going to remove the link again in the meantime.
Gypsum Fantastic 00:00, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
David Blunkett is unlikely to ever see the programme in question. Zik-Zak 17:55, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
(<-)Bonce is a rather old-fashioned slang word for head. None of the others are! 94.195.129.125 ( talk) 00:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm inclined to think that the lists of celebs merely mentioned is overly enthusiastic, However, I know some people like such things. But I wondered if anyone had the nous to put all that info in a table of some sort. It would look a lot better if it used the width of the page a bit more. Perhaps the 6 episodes in a 3 column by 2 row grid (or four rows if you have a divide between featured and mentioned)? Anyone know how to do it? -- bodnotbod 10:32, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
I would agree with localzuk. The bit about mentioned celebrities is silly and they should all have a seperate article. Of course I won't do this myself but it would be greatly apreciated if someone did. User:Kevin Granther
Well-done article, congratulations to the editors. Made me laugh, too. Herostratus 20:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I recall watching the programme and distinctly remember one element was a shot of a group of children with a man approaching them wearing a 'building' costume, accompanied by the voice of Chris Morris saying "Paedophiles have also been known to disguise themselves as actual schools in order to attract innocent children". Can anyone confirm this and possibly provide a screen-grab, as I believe it give a pertinent summary to the programme and its satirical aims. Bigpinkthing - Feb 14 2006
Is it worth putting anything in about Channel 4's cynical decision to screen the Pedophile episode late at night then again the very next day after the (inevitable) tabloid hysteria when all the disgusted's of Tunbridge Wells would be sure to tune in to view the "sick filth" themselves (having completely missed the original screening).-- ElvisThePrince 15:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Is there anything to back this up? It seems pretty absurd to me.
82.5.68.95 ( talk) 14:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Play.com lists 2 Brass Eye DVDs, one set for release in August 2007 - does anyone know anymore about this?
It seems un-encyclopedic to mention that the articles in the Daily Star and Daily Mail ran next to stories that might be seen as pedophilic (I know that's not a word), it seems like an extension of the "some people say" routine that is also used in that section to interject the author's personal opinion while maintaining the illusion of objectivity. It all seems very Fox News to me.
The part about about the series being postponed because of the pulp/myra hindly sketch is wrong. The show was actually postponed because of legal issues surrounding the cake fiasco. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben the mighty ( talk • contribs) 12:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
-- Ben the mighty 14:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I've cut this line, which was sitting on its own at the end of the section without any context:
"It is noted that the word "Reconstruction" appears over five times, often for the same scene."
Noted by whom? Appears where? Over five times? It sounds like this might be true and possibly even relevant, but I've frankly got no idea what it's on about. If you understand it, could you work it into the article somewhere that flows and makes sense? 81.107.32.231 ( talk) 15:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The transcript link gives a 403 for me. If the link isn't going to be usable for anyone, should we just remove it? D4g0thur 16:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Above someone has already brought up the "none of the celebrities realised tehy were being lampooned" statement, but there are several more statements-of-fact which are presented without any qualification or attempt to attribute them to a reliable source.
Please bear in mind Pillars of Wikipedia.
For me references to the ironic nature of the tabloids reporting of pedogeddon are an issue. Ironic is an opinion. We need to state ironic according to whom, and provide a citation to statements of their ironic-nature - not links to page-scans and assume the reader is astute or like-minded enough to reach the same conclusion as yourself.-- ZayZayEM ( talk) 07:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
The Daily Mail article itself was probably:
royals have been out making the most of the sunshine. Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie donned bikinis for a dip in the Med on a family holiday. The Duchess of York joined in the fun in a black one-piece swimsuit as the trio dived from the bows of the launch Black Silver during a cruise off St Tropez at the weekend.
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |archivedate=
(
help)the date matches, although the Highbeam mirror is without photographs for confirmation. — Sladen ( talk) 13:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I have recently moved the brief passage on the paedophile and convicted child murderer Sidney Cooke from his own article. As there has been a minor, slow, edit war on this issue for a while, I have added an extended explanation of my reasoning on that article's talk page. As those who consider it legitimate to add a reference to Brass Eye to Cooke's article are more likely to be watching this page, I invite them to contribute to the discussion on the other talk page. Philip Cross ( talk) 17:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I have left this here because it's not that relevant to the episodes, as they are self explanatory. Who was in them, is not. 81.141.61.191 ( talk) 13:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
|
|
|