Ofcom mulls smackdown for rogue religious TV channel Satellite channel Believe TV has broadcast advertisements during programmes, made unsupported claims of curing cancer and repeatedly improperly exploited its audience, says Ofcom – enough to make even the normally hands-off regulator consider a fine. The channel is broadcast on Sky and is filled with the kind of testament one …
Surely it wouldn't be a separate channel but just subliminal images inserted into an existing channel's broadcast. And then you'd find that the chances of one of these frames being broadcast is so low, you'd probably never get to see one even if you tuned in for your entire lifetime. But you'd supposedly feel much better for having watched.
That's genius.
You only have to broadcast one single thing that's any good, but it doesn't matter because all of the rest of the crap *will remember* and become good as a result.
Paris because I think that's more or less what she did (except the one good thing, wasn't really).
Considering that Sky is hosting the 'God helps those who help themselves to others pockets' channel you have no need for another FUD outfit.
We already have Faux News for the 'dumb as shit' brgade and countless adverts of household cleaners poured over 'just-made-dirty' kitchen surfaces to rake in the gullible. Combined with many ads for 'health supplements' designed for those who will pee or crap them straight out again as either the body can't use them in that particular form or just doesn't need them, you are already well the way to spiritual and fiscal enlightenment.
In the meantime can I interest you in subscribing to a home-study course to enable you and your loved ones to prepare fully for the next Rapture[tm]. It is clear that we were not godly enough last time so it is necessary to ensure the full holyness needed to be raised up. A convenient Direct Debit scheme is available, just ring this extortionate phone trap and hand over your card details to avoid the embarrassment of being overlooked by the Almighty.
Well, that's what Sky Plus is for. Select desired station, pause it, do something else for as long as the total duration of all the advert breaks minus however long you might want to spend on live pause, then come back and hit play. When adverts come on, just fast-forward through them. By the time you catch up with broadcast, it will be the end of the programme.
I'd make those who advocate polluting the BBC with adverts watch Sky on a non-recording box, but it's probably against some human rights law regarding cruel and unusual punishments.
Back when I were a lad and worked for an ITV company centre breaks in religious programming (and childrens programmes) were not allowed, and if memory serves there were also restrictions on the content allowed in the breaks immediately before and after the programme.
Breaks in live sport also weren't allowed to interrupt the flow of the event and had to wait for a natural gap, football matches crammed two long breaks into half time, but that got dropped when ITV got Formula One GPs.
If it helps stop morons from cloggin up the NHS, and demanding rather expensive medicine and treatments, is it really such a bad idea? I'm all for protecting the vulnerable from exploitative swindle-merchants, but there comes a point when you have to wonder if we're really so short of religous morons that we really have to try to save them all. I'm sure they all quite keen to join their maker in paradise, surely we shouldn't try to delay their ultimate happiness?
Not so much "To the Faith" as "from the Faith"....
Sadly, we can keep these folks alive and if they have a Damassene conversion too early then the costs of keeping them alive far and out way any saving previously made through the idiots believing "AIDs is cured by Faith" or some such non-sense.
Putting a Darwinian spin on this, should this not mean that they eventually remove themselves from the gene pool because they have died from curable conditions?
Oh. Probably not after thinking about it, as they have probably already had their children by the time they die of age related problems like cancer. Pity. Would love to wave such an ironic proof of Darwinian Evolution in the faces of the Creationists!
Many cancers can be treated very successfully ( early melanoma, juvenile leukaemia, among others) - ie. mortality rates of those treated tend closely towards those of the general population.
Cancer can't be "cured" - both you and I have cancer anyway. Advertising a "cure" for cancer is as fraudulent and nonsensical as advertising a "cure" for having feet.
If I cut off your feet, they won't grow back. The same cannot be said for cancer.
Cancerous cells are not the same as normal cells. Therefore eliminating all cancerous cells from the body will cure cancer. Example: malignant cancerous cells replicate indefinitely, unlike all other cells in the body. Eliminate all 'immortalised' cells, eliminate the cancer.
Don't confuse any sort of pre-cancerous mutation with cancer. Don't assume cancers are an inevitable of being alive. Don't assume everyone somehow magically has an inactive cancer. You are wrong.
And as we all know, once enacted they remain in place FOR ALL ETERNITY.
Oh wait, that's religious law I'm thinking of. Turns out in the rest of the world old rules can be updated, replaced or repealed.
Oh, and in the event of a real cure for cancer being developed, I think everyone will hear about it pretty damn quickly.
They'd probably be allowed to advertise it through the appropriate means:
Pharmaceutical publications/journals
Promotional materials to hospitals
Indirectly through news: "News just in, Glaxosmithkline have announced that they have finally discovered the cure for cancer..."
Television adverts? Probably not.
Before the huge "ZOMG" crowd start, how often are serious medications advertised on the TV?
You get adverts for various over the counter drugs, but I can't remember the last time I saw an advert for "Insulex! Instead of your normal Insulin, take Insulex! Insulex, for all your diabetic needs! Call 0906 342 2383 (0906 DIA BETE) for your free sample now!"
In the same way, I can't imagine the cancer cure drug being advertised in such a way.
No real difference to why Viagra and the likes are advertised in the US but not over here. You'll get it on the NHS anyway. Why would a drug manufacturer (or whoever) pay to advertise on TV for a cure to cancer when they can get it picked up in the mainstream press fairly easily, advertise to GPs and other healthcare professionals and get the NHS to pay?
(Yes, I'm aware Viagra (probably) isn't banned from being advertised, but meh.)
The little blue pills don't really need marketing, but there does seem to be a lot of ads for erectile dysfunction on telly of late (usually during action movies - make of that what you will). They obviously can't show the condition or any before and after photos, so they have to approach the matter in incredibly elliptical manners. Watch one with the sound muted before the info at the end and there is precisely zero chance you'd guess what it was advertising - debt problems? soft furnishings? bedside lighting? a particularly dull holiday park?
There are strict rules about the promotion of prescription only medicines in the UK.
You cannot advertise them to the general public - encouraging people to 'ask your doctor about it..'. Obviously manufacturers can pitch their product at healthcare professionals. Such information is publically available, but you would need to seek it out.
Personally I support this approach. More specifically, advertising a cure for cancer should be a criminal offense in my opinion.
There are cures for certain types of cancer with varying degrees of effectiveness, and people are not allowed to advertise them. You go do a doctor and they recommend the appropriate treatment, so you get a treatment recommended by a suitably qualified person rather than the one with the best TV ad.
Given the current lag between "Hey, I think we might have a good idea" and "Here, the NHS wants you to take this pill," is something like 18 YEARS, I think they'd have time to change the law.
OTOH all sorts of things that you can only get on prescription are not currently advertised on TV (just heavily promoted to doctors)so it may be that HMG (in all its various guides since 1937) doesn't want patients deciding what drugs they want on the basis of TV advertising.
Can't remember the last time I saw an advertisement for Bob Martins either.
"Ofcom's decision treads awfully carefully though the rights of the religious..."
This is what pisses me off about any form of religion: that it considers itself immune from any kind of criticism, selling tat to the gullible and vulnerable in the name of 'faith'. Had a mainstream non-religious channel made such claims, I suspect Ofcom would not have tread quite so awfully carefully.
And yet we have to 'play nice' to this section of society that believes in magic sky fairies and tells people that they're going to hell if they don't talk to him/her/it every night.
I'll stop now. Once I get on to religion I tend to just ramble and rant inanely. Mine's the one with the God Delusion and Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy in the pocket...
but then they would not believe you
and anyway, by NOT allowing this atheists (often) do have a strong sense of ethics, and thus show that atheism != satanism. This confuses the hell out of the more mindless type believers (which are the ones "self-selected" by this channel).
Note that I have quite a number of Christians, Jews, Hindus and Muslims as friends, and none are mindless (mindless believers (or atheists) I tolerate, rather than befriend)
I believe there is a God who can and does act in miraculous ways. I also dislike quite a lot of religious programming. Too much is either too nice and wishey washey (mainstream channels) or is exploitative and hyped up (some Christian channels). I really hate the prosperity gospel types and especially the "sell a blessing" crowd.
Mt 10:8 "Freely you have received, freely give" - (It is OK to fund raise to support a ministry it does cost to run a church or channel but that should never be liked to "getting the blessing".)
This channel has crossed a line that they have agreed to abide to, and that line isn't contrary to the Gospel, so they should be punished.
Seriously? People have down-voted a post because it was posted by a Christian?
Unless it's being down-voted for implying that it' s OK to "cross the line" as long as the Gospel says so, there's nothing warranting the down-votes here - and I'm from the general school of thought that religion is a largely harmless* diversion for people who feel the need for the universe to make some kind of sense (I tend to think shit happens, there's no grand plan and the only difference between us and soil is time).
*largely harmless - insofar as it's often used as an excuse to cause harm rather than a cause of harm in and of itself. People are basically monkeys with better weapons and chimps will happily murder each other without having to invoke some higher power - without religion we'd simply have "philosophical" wars rather than religious ones.
I hope you are not wearing cloths made of one material:
- Leviticus 19:19: "...do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear material woven of two kinds of material."
Or have a tattoo
-- Leviticus 19:28: "Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD."
Best of all, and it’s a pity some of these so called TV evangelists seem not to notice this one (how convenient), you should not pray in public as only hypocrites pray in public.
- Matthew 6:5-6: And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
Any religious people who post on ElReg should immedatally cease and desist as you may be disassociating with non-believers
- Corinthians 6:14-16: Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial[b]? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols?
Christians don’t put up Christmas tree, only heathens put up christmas trees
- Jerimiah 10:2-5: Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not. They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.
And if your neighbour puts up a Christmas tree, fell free to take what ever you want from them:
- Psalms 2:8: "Ask of me, and I shall give thee, the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession."
Kids giving you some lip? Put then to death, its OK to do that, the bible says so:-
- Leviticus 20:9: For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.
Anyone bonk the missus before they got married, well then stone her to death ‘cos she a whore:-
- Deuteronomy 22:13-21: If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
:
And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid;
:
Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die:
And you also own your farther in law a hundred shekels of silver
The testicles of violent men as sacred objects and are not to be handled by woman so ladies if you have to go to the aid of your menfold careful what you grab:-
- Deuteronomy 25:11:-“When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity.
and if she does mange to crush your nuts (and loose her hand) well tough, its off to hell for you:-
- Deuteronomy 23:1: No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord.
But you can’t selectively pick the parts of the bible you want to believe in or even put your own interpretation on parts of the bible, or so the bible claims. In First Epistle of Peter, and this is from the king john version new testament.
- Peter 1:20-21: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.
As with most religions, it’s all or nothing. But as catholic priests will tell you, you have a free will to make your own decision, but it must be an informed decision, and that they are the ones who want to do the informing.
Yeah, because making a single quote from a book that is useful for helping your point along means that you believe everything in that book to be true. If you had even the most basic knowledge of Christian theology, you'd know that most of the old testament is treated as a history, but not something that should be taken literally. This is, of course, something that also applies to the noisy anti-homosexuallity groups, funnily you never see them wearing fabrics of one material, and they do tend to eat shellfish.
Quoting the old testament as an example of how to live it not advisable, unless you're an orthodox Jew.
That above quote sums it up perfectly.
@"repeatedly improperly exploited its audience"
Which is the crime all cults commit (and anyone who is a cult follower, don't fool yourself, all religions are cults).
But then as much as we try to protect the gullible cult followers, ultimately if these gullible people base their health care on anything the lying cults want to tell them, then sadly thats a perfect demonstration of natural selection still stochastically deselecting the cult followers from our gene pool over time.
One way or another the lying cults are coming to an end, but then its not really the followers who are the main problem. Its their lying cult leaders who perpetuate this problem.
Which makes these lying adverts so interesting as its a perfect example of how lacking in empathy the cult leaders are to allow their followers to be exploited like this. It shows so well how two faced the cults leaders are and yet their gullible followers still believe them. :(
You say that about cults because perceive cults to be abusing their followers, whereas you assume religions don't abuse their followers, which is where you are so wrong. Try telling the idea that religions don't abuse their followers to the many thousands who have been abused by catholic church leaders. Try telling the families of the millions who have died in the name of religions throughout history. Try telling so many millions of poor in so many countries that their money is making their religious leaders rich whilst they suffer poverty. Ask yourself what the leaders get out of telling their followers what to do. Now look at the harm this TV channel is causing and then look at the money the creators of the TV channel are getting out of lying to their followers.
Time for you to learn the truth.
Darwinism in action. If you believe that you can replace a kidney with a bar of expensive soap then you should be given every opportunity to remove yourself from the gene pool.
This vital service will save the NHS billions, free up housing stock and give an economic boost to undertakers.
"This channel has crossed a line that they have agreed to abide to, and that line isn't contrary to the Gospel, so they should be punished."
Translate as 'I agree with the general condemnation of these activities'
So were you marked down by four people who disagreed with the premise that these adverts are inappropriate, or were you marked down for being a (shock, horror) Christian?
People on here have some very odd ideas sometimes ,,,
I had the misfortune, while channel surfing, to wander into one of these programs last week.
It one person started praying 'in tongues', or glossolalia to use the correct term, and that it was a supernormal prayer, and because it was a supernormal prayer he has just cured one person of cancer, and the other presenter then chipped in with “yes, and person who was blind in one eye can now see”
If these two were on television enough then we could possibly close half the hospitals in the country.
I never knew the flying spaghetti monster or the invisible pink unicorn were so powerful.
If they're repeatedly and knowingly advertising cures (or even just treatments) for cancer and especially they don't have any credible evidence to back up their claims (which I'm fairly confident they won't have), then surely there should be some people facing the prospect of a criminal conviction, not merely a slap on the wrist from Ofcom.
It'd be bad enough if they were just offering false hope for free, but if they're breaking the law for profit, and selling things that they know (or that they should know) don't do what they claim, then in a just system they'd be up for fraud as well.
If they claimed that their belief trumps the law of the land that they've already been explicitly warned about, then they'd have pretty comprehensively shown themselves not to be fit and proper people to run a media outlet.
For some cures can be achieved by non-medical means, it's a fact, there is probably a good scientific reason for it as well. Belief you can be cured, by whatever means can sometimes work when all else fails. It isn't, however a substitute for propper medical adivice and care, and no one should be allowed to advertise Homeopathy, Prayer or Placebos of any kind as cures for anything.
The vast majority of religious people put their faith in Medicine as well as their god, and don't think that just because someone has the title of bishop, we are more likely to believe him than our GP in medical matters, because we aren't. Where some religions proscribe certain treatments, and resort to prayer, it isn't because they think the treatment won't work, they know it likely will, and however wrong they may be, it is ultimately a choice for them, if of age.
I promise not to preach, but I feel I must step in and stand up for Christians the world over who are being discriminated against on a daily basis by neo-secular organizations such as "OFCOM". If this had been an atheist TV channel selling some kind of sin based product, OFCOM would been only too happy to let them do it. Certainly I have never heard of a non-Christian channel being fined by OFCOM for selling products. OFCOM could learn from the teachings of Jesus himself who taught us to turn the other cheek.
Like I said I don't want to preach, for I realize how the godless public these days despise listening to the trust, so all I will say that's quite brave of OFCOM to have perpetrated this action and it's supporters to saction it given how close we now are to the day of judgement where all will be judged.
Anyone dumb enough to believe in an invisible friend is probably dumb enough to believe they can buy a cure for cancer from a TV show.
Old and cynical as I am, I still think it's morally reprehensible to take advantage of the stupid. It'd be nice if Ofcom actually grows a pair, gives the God bothering channel a very hefty fine and pulls their license.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
