But are we so sure we're on the moral high ground? The 1970's didn't have an unfair pecking order defining which identitarian groups are allowed and encouraged to attack and bully other groups, resulting in widespread societal
An outrage mob has accused he BritBox of racism after it put up an episode of Doctor Who where Chinese people are played by western actors.
The pay streaming service run by the BBC and ITV was accused of failing to put a trigger warning on
the 1977 six-part series titled The Talons of Weng-Chiang where white actors are shown wearing make-up and putting on accents as they play Asian characters.
Britbox later added a content warning to the episode since the kerfuffle, and said its
compliance team are still working to review all programmes. A warning to the series now says that it contains some offensive language of the time and upsetting scenes.
A spokeswoman for the British East Asians in Theatre & on Screen
told The Times the episode is really hard to watch because yellowface is so unacceptable now.
The episode stars Tom Baker playing the Doctor as he battles a Chinese stage magician villain called Li H'sen Chang, played by white British actor
Woody Allen's memoir, Apropos of Nothing, was acquired last week by the publisher Hachette in the US.
The move was quickly condemned by the author's daughter Dylan Farrow, who has alleged that Allen sexually abused her as a child, allegations that
Allen has denied. These allegations have twice been investigated by the authorities but have not led to arrest, charge or prosecution.
Allen's son Ronan Farrow, whose book Catch and Kill --also published by Hachette -- details his investigations
into institutional sexual abuse in the media and Hollywood, also blasted the decision and announced he would no longer work with Hachette.
The Hachette censorship was initiated by Hachette staff in the US who staged a walkout at its New York
offices over the memoir. The publisher then pulled the book, claming that the decision was a difficult one.
Woody Allen's memoir will still be published in France despite its US publisher dropping it, with his French publisher saying that the film
director is not Roman Polanski and that the American situation is not ours.
Offsite Comment: This is the behaviour of censors, not publishers
I do not want to read books that are good for me or that are written by people whose views I always agree with or admire. I am always afraid when a mob, however small and well read, exercises power without any accountability, process
or redress. That frightens me much more than the prospect of Woody Allen's autobiography hitting the bookstores.
The UNWomen Oxford UK Society had invited former Home Secretary Amber Rudd to speak on the totally uncontroversial topic of women's equality. She was due to be interviewed on her former roles as minister for women and equalities and chair of the
All-Party Parliamentary Group for Sex Equality.
But less than an hour before the event, the UNWomen society had a change of heart and decded to no-platform their invited speaker.
It seems that the issue that offended the students was that the
Windrush scandal happened under Rudd's watch at the Home Office and negated all her other achievements.
Amber Rudd described the decision to cancel the event as badly judged and rude'
Did you know that if you are a woman, the dictionary will refer to you as a bitch or a maid? And that a man is a person with the qualities associated with males, such as bravery, spirit, or toughness or a man of honour and the man of the house?
These are, according to the dictionary, the synonyms for woman alongside a wealth of derogatory and equally sexist examples 203 I told you to be home when I get home, little woman or Don't be daft, woman!
Synonyms and examples such as these, when offered without context, reinforce negative stereotypes about women and centre men. That's dangerous because language has real world implications, it shapes perceptions and influences the way women are treated.
Dictionaries are essential reference tools, and the Oxford Dictionary of English is an essential learning tool, used in libraries and schools around the world. It is also the source licensed by Apple and Google, namely the most
read online dictionary in the world.
Its inclusion of derogatory terms used to describe women should aim at exposing everyday sexism, not perpetuating it.
Bitch is not a synonym for woman. It is
dehumanising to call a woman a bitch. It is but one sad, albeit extremely damaging, example of everyday sexism. And that should be explained clearly in the dictionary entry used to describe us.
We are calling on Oxford University
Press, which publishes the Oxford Dictionary of English, as well as the online Oxford Dictionaries (www.lexico.com to change their entry for the word woman. It might not end everyday sexism or the patriarchy but it's a good start.
Maria Beatrice Giovanardi and the campaign team Mandu Reid, leader of Women's Equality Party Deborah Cameron, professor of language and communication, Oxford University Nicki Norman, acting CEO of Women's Aid
Federation of England Fiona Dwyer, CEO at Solace Women's Aid Estelle du Boulay, Director of Rights of Women Laura Coryton, tampon tax petition starter, Period Poverty Task Force Member at the Government Equalities Office,
alumni of University of Oxford (MSt in Women's Studies) Gabby Edlin, CEO and Founder of Bloody Good Period The Representation Project Zoe Dronfield, trustee at Paladin National Stalking Advocacy Service Gwen
Rhys, founder and CEO of Women in the City David Adger, professor of linguistics, Queen Mary University of London Dr Christine Cheng, author and lecturer in war studies at King's College Dr Christina Scharff, author and
reader in gender, media and culture at King's College Judith Large, senior research fellow
a. The first poster, seen on the London Underground on 14 November 2019, featured a model wearing a pink wrap mini-dress, which showed her legs and cleavage.
b. The second poster, seen on 24 November
on a train station platform, featured the same model leaning against a side table wearing an unbuttoned jacket with nothing underneath, sheer tights and high heels.
Issue The complainants, who believed the images were overly sexualised and objectified women, challenged whether:
ad (a); and
ad (b) were offensive.
One of the complainants also challenged whether ad (a) was appropriate for display where it could be seen by children.
1. Not upheld
The ASA considered that the pose adopted by the model in ad (a) was no more than mildly sexual. The wrap style of the dress and her pose, with one arm
slightly behind her, meant that it fell open just by her breast, which we considered was likely to be in keeping with how the dress would ordinarily be worn, but featured no explicit nudity. We also considered the focus of the ad was on the model in
general and on the featured dress, rather than on a specific part of her body. While we acknowledged that some people might find the ad distasteful and the clothing revealing, we considered that the ad was unlikely to be seen as overtly sexual or as
objectifying either the model in the ad or women in general and we therefore concluded the ad was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.
2. Upheld The model in ad (b) was wearing a blazer with nothing underneath, which
exposed the side of her breast, and which was coupled with sheer tights, sheer gloves and underwear. We considered she would be seen as being in a state of undress and that the focus was on her chest area and lower abdomen rather than the clothing being
advertised. We also noted that her head was tilted back, with her mouth slightly open, and her leg was bent and raised, which we considered was likely to be seen as a sexually suggestive pose. We considered that the sexually suggestive styling and pose
would be seen as presenting women as sexual objects. Because the ad objectified women, we concluded that ad (b) was likely to cause serious offence.
3. Not upheld Ad (a) was seen on the London Underground and we accepted that
children were likely to have seen the ad. However, for the reasons stated in point 1 above, we considered the image was not overtly sexual, and therefore concluded that it had not been placed inappropriately.
Ad (b) must not
appear again in its current form. We told Missguided Ltd not to use advertising that objectified women and which was likely to cause serious offence.
The animated series Star Wars: The Clone Wars has made it onto the internet TV service Disney Plus, but it's missing a bit on the episode A Distant Echo .
A once teased, but ultimately axed scene featured some WW2-era pinup-style
graphics. It showed a leggy Senator Padme Amidala in high boots, a severe updo, a mischievously cryptic look on her face, and a gun in hand.
In the deleted scene, Anakin asks Hunter, Hey! What's with the nose art? Hunter responds, That's our girl.
The Naboo Senator. We check her out on the holoscans. Wrecker responds, Yea! She can negotiate with me anytime!
Disney has not given any reason for this latest cutting room floor decision. But some fans are frustrated at Disneyand those within, who
want to sterilize everything for the modern era.
We have received complaints from viewers who felt that a member of the audience was allowed to make unchallenged racist
comments, and that a clip should not have been posted to the programme's Twitter page.
Question Time is a topical discussion programme where the audience place a key role in the debate.
We always seek out a range of opinions and views on every topic and it is therefore inevitable that from time to time there will be comments made that you may disagree with. This edition of the programme included a debate about immigration which featured
a broad range of views from the audience members and panellists.
After the audience member in question finished speaking, Fiona offered the panel the opportunity to respond to the points raised. Ash Sarkar strongly refuted the
audience member's claims before the debate continued and we heard from other members of the panel and our audience on this issue. We recognise that some of our viewers would have preferred that Fiona interrupted this particular audience member more
quickly but we are satisfied that in the generality of the debate we ensured that different perspectives and viewpoints were heard. As a programme we are a forum for discussion and therefore never take a view on the comments made by our panellists or
audience members. We do want to assure you, however, that all content that we publish adheres to the BBC's editorial and legal guidelines.
In regards to the Tweet, Question Time posted five clips of people expressing their
different views on the issue, which included the contributions of two panel members and two other audience contributions. We note that some of these posts have also been widely discussed and shared in keeping with our core obligation around ensuring that
our audiences on social and digital as well as television and radio get a balanced summary of the debate in question.