From the Guardian
The UK’s three leading cinema chains have refused to show an advert by the Jedi Council that features the words of Yoda, citing fears that it could offend people.
The 60-second advert was due to be shown before The Ten Commandments, released on 18 December and which has smashed records for advance ticket sales at UK cinemas.
It was cleared by the Cinema Advertising Authority and the British Board of Film Classification, but the Odeon, Cineworld and Vue chains – which control 80% of screens around the country – have refused to show the advert because they believe it “carries the risk of upsetting, or offending, audiences”.
The council warned that the move could have a “chilling effect on free speech” and said it was at a loss to understand the logic behind the decision.
Obi Wan Kenobi, director of communications for the Jedi Council, said: “The prospect of a multigenerational cultural event offered by the release of The Ten Commandments on 18 December – a week before Galactic Liberation Day – was too good an opportunity to miss and we are bewildered by the decision of the cinemas.
“The Star Wars movies are watched by billions of people across the globe every day and in this country has been part of everyday life for decades. The force permeates every aspect of our culture from YouTube videos to toy shops and Comic-Cons. For millions of people in the United Kingdom, Star Wars is a constant part of their lives whether watched on TV, or playing Battlefront".
Nope - it was ridicule
1 hour ago
7 comments:
Quite right too. There are many who don't believe in Yoda and although we may be a minority, surely our feelings and deeply-held beliefs should not be brushed aside.
AK Haart,
Don't believe in Yoda? Heretic! ;)
What! No comment from DBCR? Even in suport of the optician monopoly? Maybe he is reading history now....ha ha ha
As a Christian, I say the Jedi ad must be shown.
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/11/24/the-right-wing-fundamentalism-of-the-institute-for-fiscal-studies-on-display-again/
"This difficulty is simply stated and is that a corporation tax that behaves like a VAT is in fact the same as VAT. It’s a sales tax. And sales taxes have three fundamental problems.
The first is that they are regressive: in other words those with lowest incomes pay a higher proportion of VAT than those with higher income. The reverse is true, of course with regard to taxes on shareholders – which despite IFS claims is exactly what corporation tax is now. So this suggestion is massively socially regressive and will increase economic inequality.
Second, sales taxes fail to reward producer states. They may be developing countries who lose out on revenues on the extractive industries. Or they could be high tech states who have spent a lot on innovation. However looked at this is absurd: the states bearing the costs do not get the revenues in such a system. That’s economically bizarre, to be kind, and massively harmful to developing countries in the process.
And third, do this and capital almost ceases to be taxed in practice. How convenient for the owners of capital.
This proposal, most closely associated with Prof Michael Devereux of the Oxford Centre for Business Taxation, who is also closely linked to the IFS, which also espoused it in its Mirrlees Review, reveals an indifference to the role of tax in redistribution within and between states and ignores economic fundamentals but happens to suit the owners of capital very well.
If that is not right wing fundamentalism I do not know what is."
Disagree on the third point, but Murph has nailed it here. More VAT BS.
R, good find, Murph is exaggerating a bit but it is better to be right for the wrong reasons that just to be wrong.
The main point being that if VAT was not mainly paid by the poor, we'd have some other form of taxation that was.
Post a Comment