Wether the the rape happened or not is irrelevant.
I reason the issue is "was the program a bridge too far?" and to me it clearly was. Therefore The propagators of the show deserve NO compensation and should bear the consequences of their actions.

I chose these words carefully in that I stress that in everything for every benefit there is a responsibility.
Without this balance weasel words (the legalistic) approach with erode any intellectual justification for anything thus reducing us by reverse paradigms back from whence we come, that of self gratifying animals.

In other words as Fractelle rightfully asked “are we as humans greater than the sum of the whole?” I would certainly hope we are.

The other alternative is we aren't and therefore Yabby is correct we are totally the product of our genes/hormones....chemical mechanistic animals.

Likewise Antiseptic/ H / Col and ilk are justified in their basic assumption that standards are merely affectations. Then base instinctual behaviour (dog eat dog, caveat emptor etc.) are apposite (thanks CJ for the word). Clearly then 40k years of 'human development' is delusional and has been for nought.

On a personal note, I am often criticised for using big words (pompous) to me the language has evolved and often big words say it better. In context I don't subscribe to the concept of reverse snobbery of the news (sic) media that dumbs down. I would raise the topic from blind opinion to something that has a real purpose.

History shows that literal/simplistic languages (e.g. PNG) create both limitations and unnecessary misunderstandings when confronted with complex concepts.
Of course there is a balance.
Occam's razor is most often misused. In that it says two EQUAL explanations the simpler is usually true. Keep in mind that the problem maybe my skill level not attitude.
Like I've said before just because we defecate doesn't mean we should roll in it like some animals..
In conclusion shows like the one under discussion are IMO the equivalent of rolling in our own excrement for entertainment. I'll pass.

MaryE,

Pull the other one! Nice attempted save though.

BTW: I agree with your first two paragraphs. I tried many times in one of the Rugby League sex scandal threads to say the same but nobody would listen. The feminists cry rape, the anti-feminists cry false accusation. Nobody really knows. I would say that the police know a little more than your average ACA watcher though.

which brings me to robert,

Don't you know that by watching ACA you are part of the problem. Whatever your 'reasons', I don't want to hear any examinator-style put downs of the ACA type shows and appeals to the lowest common denominator by radio stations from you forever more.

TPP,

If you use Jedi mind tricks my suggestion will work. Unless they are Jabba the Hut.

whistler,

Hey do you think mens and womens legislatures would fix the problem? Actually, I've got a problem with my computer at the moment, do you think mens and womens legislatures can fix it for me?

anti,

'which I still feel was the only reason there was a public uproar over this. '
Exactly! Nobody would have said anything about the show if that didn't happen. It was already up for an award it seems. Same as the Henson pictures, nobody would have said anything if they used a different picture to promote the exhibition.

All,

Child pornography is a bit of a stretch. If there was a documentary about the sex lives of children on SBS people would say it's quality journalism. So it's not the topic, it's the presentation. So the presentation makes it offensive, just like the lighting decides what's porn and what's art. You cant make laws for that kind of thing. Even good art and good documentaries aim to make a profit.

In the end it's all about taste, and the intellegensia and moral crusaders. Actually the moral crusaders are at least consistent (objecting to Hansen and Kyle). Where's runner...

Kyle had a target on his head anyway, for being a tosser who's to big for his boots.

examinator,

Perhaps it's your skill level in using your big words that's the problem. They really look like they're picked out of a thesaurus after the event, and substituted for other words. I mean I find KRudd boring but most times I can understand him if I stay awake. But you on the other hand...

Maybe you just need to discover commas and stuff.

You do come off as really pompous. All this use of 'we' when you're banging on about your own perspective. How arrogant. And the way you put down the pikeys all the time while using different words for poo.

pericles,

See you made some of the same points I did, and got all that praise. Bloody plagiariser. Maybe it's in the delivery...

robert,

'Some really funny comedy seems to involve the reactions of unwitting participants or mocking groups who seem silly.'

Yes it does!

I still remember this time they called a guys wife up on radio, and asked if they'd had sex in the morning. It was an 'ask the couple the same questions and see if they give the same answers' type thing.

The woman was hesitant to say whether they had sex, wondering if the husband had revealed this to the national audience. She figured he would have, so she answered correctly that they had. Closer to that holiday now...

Then they asked where she had sex. She was really, really hesitant about this answer, and the Jocks and the husband were a bit miffed as to why she was so worried about revealing this, given that she had already answered the previous question. She seemed stressed about whether to answer, but she really wanted that holiday.

After much agonising, finally, she answered.... 'in the back door'!

Comedy gold, and hilarity all-round. The husband answered something like 'in the lounge room'.

I'm not sure whether they won the holiday, but should have just for the comedy value.

MaryE “Just as your list of assumptions that he was a good father was wrong”

I find it a stretch to infer from my comments that I made any assumptions to the fathers worthiness… but you just jump to whatever conclusions you want, you seem to be proficient at that.

“It was a question about where is the father in all this”

All I know is the mother was there with the daughter, the father was not there with the daughter. From that we can conclude,

the father was not available to influence the course of the interview and

the mother was available to influence the course of the interview

therefore

the father was not available to protect his child, presumably having left the safety of the child in the hands of the mother

The failure to protect the child was entirely a failing of the (skank) mother, the opportunity for a few tickets to see "Pink" seemingly overriding all other considerations.

Think what you want, you cannot evade the facts , regardless of your claims to me “barrow pushing”, of which you do not have a clue… but from the rest of your post, I would surmise, having any clue would make no difference to your posturing.

Houellebecq I like your attempts to bring levity to the thread… so many serious people dealing with what.. a bunch of ego junkies polluting the radio airways.. jeez too serious for words…

btw the lady and her last cavort …. an oldie but a goodie

Could be, Houellebecq

>>pericles, See you made some of the same points I did, and got all that praise. Bloody plagiariser. Maybe it's in the delivery...<<

Maybe it is.

Worth considering, anyway.

*The other alternative is we aren't and therefore Yabby is correct we are totally the product of our genes/hormones....chemical mechanistic animals.*

Ok Examinator, let me explain to you where I am really coming from
on this one.

Yes, we are a product of our genes interacting with our environment.
My claim is that our so called "free will" is far less free then
many kid themselves, for subconscious processes interfere at every
level.

So let me give you an example. How free is Osama bin Laden to become a good Catholic tomorrow?

At first glance you would conclude that he is completely free to
do so, but is he really?

Osama is clearly a religious fellow, has been so all his life, even
as a kid. From day one of his life, all he has heard about is the
greatness of Allah. His family taught him that every day, his school
taught him the same, then newspapers he read taught him the same,
the books he read taught him the same.

If his will was completely free, clearly the chances of becoming
a good Catholic would be 50%. But we know that there is a 95%
chance that he will remain a devout Muslim for the rest of his life.

Osama's so called free will is clearly coloured by his genes having
interacted with his environment, with a 95% accuracy of probability
being able to be predicted, about his future behaviour. In other
words, that is not free at all, but quite limited