Fireman Sam the Islamaphobe.

[Craterloads]

You need to ask them then what they specifically apologised for, from watching the video and according to all the articles I have read it's due to what looks like treading on it and it flying up into the air. That's what it looks like when watching.

 

[Cosimo]

I'm waiting for the outcry when poor Fireman Sam has a fatwa pronounced against him. Would he be the first animated character to receive one?

 

[Gilly]

Pretty much. Although why would anyone go to the bother to make it like that in the first place?

Well, that's the point isn't it?

What we're trying to achieve here is stopping people being deliberately antagonistic. Realistically 99% of subjects can be discussed openly and honestly, but there are ways and means of doing so which seems to be beyond some people.

I defend everyone's right to be offended, but that shouldn't change anything. What I don't like is anyone being deliberately offensive, and if that's what has happened with the Fireman Sam episode then the apology was right to be issued.

 

[muon]

They removed it because they didn't want controversy, the end.

Continuing to discuss it is pointless unless you can prove it was done maliciously.

 

[Gilly]

You need to ask them then what they specifically apologised for, from watching the video and according to all the articles I have read it's due to what looks like treading on it and it flying up into the air. That's what it looks like when watching.

From the BBC:

A Mattel spokeswoman told the BBC: "It's just an unfortunate incident where someone from the production company thought they were just putting in random text.

"We have no reason to believe it was done maliciously."

In a statement, Mattel said: "The page was intended to show illegible text and we deeply regret this error.

"We sincerely apologise for any distress or offence it may have caused."

It said it would "no longer be working with the animation studio responsible", and would take "immediate action to remove this episode from circulation".

"We are reviewing our content production procedures to ensure this never happens again," it added.

By Patrick Evans, BBC's Social News and UGC Hub

It seems to be a generic apology for it being there at all. Not for it being trodden on (and it isn't trodden on). They've said that they do not believe it was done with intent, and have apologised for it being there. That should be the end of it.

 

[Surfer]

Muslims care a lot about the symbol of their religion being mistreated. We know this. Therefore it is disrespectful to do something that we know is likely to upset them, such as depict it being walked upon. Especially given such a thing could only have come about by deliberate attempt.

I think a lot of people would find what the Koran says is very disrespectful to many people. But we don't all get up in arms about it. Why is that you think?

Secondly the page with the arabic writing wasn't walked on. Assumption is the mother of all *******

Thirdly, it could actually be an attempt to portray a more varied and cross section of society the fact that not all writing has to be from the western english speaking world. I mean what if one of the pages had chinese writing on it? What then? Have we insulted China? (and all chinese speaking nations and people?)

Fourthly, i have no idea why Mattel thought it necessary to apologise, and uhmm apologise for what????

Conclusion is its a non story meant to deflect from recent horrific acts committed by Muslim extremists.

 

[james.miller]

You need to ask them then what they specifically apologised for, from watching the video and according to all the articles I have read it's due to what looks like treading on it and it flying up into the air. That's what it looks like when watching.

I dont, it's in the article you linked to.

 

[muon]

If I was Mattel I'd stick to a generic apology. They obviously haven't got a clue how it got there, and so can't comment on the exact nature of the scene or allude to any intent.

Such a big deal over nothing.

Any graphics company will now make sure employees don't insert controversial images in accidentally or maliciously though, unless of course they want to cause controversy.

 

[Hambut_Bulge]

I defend everyone's right to be offended, but that shouldn't change anything. What I don't like is anyone being deliberately offensive, and if that's what has happened with the Fireman Sam episode then the apology was right to be issued.

Except that if the cartoon page in question was from a different holy book, say the Bible, Channel 5/Mattel would not now be delivering abject fulsome apologies while, presumably, doubling up on security.

 

[Craterloads]

I think a lot of people would find what the Koran says is very disrespectful to many people. But we don't all get up in arms about it. Why is that you think?

Secondly the page with the arabic writing wasn't walked on. Assumption is the mother of all *******

Thirdly, it could actually be an attempt to portray a more varied and cross section of society the fact that not all writing has to be from the western english speaking world. I mean what if one of the pages had chinese writing on it? What then? Have we insulted China? (and all chinese speaking nations and people?)

Fourthly, i have no idea why Mattel thought it necessary to apologise, and uhmm apologise for what????

Conclusion is its a non story meant to deflect from recent horrific acts committed by Muslim extremists.

Question: which shodowy organisation is doing this deflection cover up?

 

[james.miller]

From the BBC:

A Mattel spokeswoman told the BBC: "It's just an unfortunate incident where someone from the production company thought they were just putting in random text.

"We have no reason to believe it was done maliciously."

In a statement, Mattel said: "The page was intended to show illegible text and we deeply regret this error.

"We sincerely apologise for any distress or offence it may have caused."

It said it would "no longer be working with the animation studio responsible", and would take "immediate action to remove this episode from circulation".

"We are reviewing our content production procedures to ensure this never happens again," it added.

By Patrick Evans, BBC's Social News and UGC Hub

It seems to be a generic apology for it being there at all. Not for it being trodden on (and it isn't trodden on). They've said that they do not believe it was done with intent, and have apologised for it being there. That should be the end of it.

Full statement, it seems the BBC have trimmed it down: http://www.hitentertainment.com/corporate/newsdetail.aspx?nid=162

STATEMENT REGARDING FIREMAN SAM
It has been brought to our attention that in an episode of Fireman Sam (Series 9, Episode 7), an image of the Quran is briefly depicted. The page was intended to show illegible text and we deeply regret this error. We sincerely apologise for any distress or offense it may have caused.


We will no longer be working with the animation studio responsible for this mistake. In addition, we are taking immediate action to remove this episode from circulation and we are reviewing our content production procedures to ensure this never happens again.


Again, we apologise unreservedly to our viewers.

The intent of the statement is clear. For anybody confused, Mattel own HIT Entertainment.

 

[Gilly]

Except that if the cartoon page in question was from a different holy book, say the Bible, Channel 5/Mattel would not now be delivering abject fulsome apologies while, presumably, doubling up on security.

1. You don't know that.
2. It was their choice as to how they approached this thing they didn't plan. Who are we to criticise that? All they have done is issue a generic apology.

 

[muon]

Exactly, I suspect that's the exact same apology we'd get if it were any other religious text. Nothing which is considered important by a lot of people should be there. As they said, it was supposed to be illegible text.

 

[Richeh]

Saw this story last night and felt as most, oh come on, then saw he was meant to be 'treading' on it, then saw he wasn't, then it was just a case of a random 'so how did that get there...'. Whether or not this has anything to do with this we will never know, but their is certainly potential motive for 'a dig':

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...irport-for-veil-comment-at-security-gate.html

Should add that I think Islam just like every other religion needs to be mocked in the right area's, not children's cartoons but general media etc yeah sure. Just like everything else, pretty much ever.

 

[Craterloads]

Going off the tabloids on the subject it appears the issue is with the treading and not simply just the depiction. If that's what the the tabloids are spreading you can hardly blame some being offended. If the reality is it wasn't I'm sure if everyone is privy to this then it wouldn't be a issue.

In motion it still appears that way, at best pages were on the ground in the pile which would probably still be irresponsible.

 

[RaohNS]

Muslims care a lot about the symbol of their religion being mistreated. We know this. Therefore it is disrespectful to do something that we know is likely to upset them, such as depict it being walked upon. Especially given such a thing could only have come about by deliberate attempt.

Your posts generally follow a pattern of demanding answers to things that should be very easy to deduce with basic logic.

So what do you think a Catholic Priest being beheaded does as a symbol or at least a symbolic representation of that belief? But a page in a book is (as one poster said) drawing a lot of outrage online?

I get the notion of: We should understand "why" it may be offensive but this is nothing of the kind.

 

[Adnams Drinker]

Conclusion is its a non story meant to deflect from recent horrific acts committed by Muslim extremists.

I wish I wasn't so cynical, but I can't help but agree with this point - that the timing is deliberate to remove the murder of an elderly priest from public consciousness - and get everybody thinking nice, community-cohesive thoughts again.

That said, I'm struggling to find a reason why this graphic should have been included in an episode of a children's programme and the explanation given - that it was intended to show 'illegible text' - doesn't wash, when it quite clearly and obviously resembles a page from the Qu'ran.

 

[Hambut_Bulge]

1. You don't know that.
2. It was their choice as to how they approached this thing they didn't plan. Who are we to criticise that? All they have done is issue a generic apology.

No-one shot up Charlie Hebdo for publishing any of this (some of these may not be considered sfw btw...)

 

[james.miller]

Going off the tabloids on the subject it appears the issue is with the treading and not simply just the depiction. If that's what the the tabloids are spreading you can hardly blame some being offended. If the reality is it wasn't I'm sure if everyone is privy to this then it wouldn't be a issue.

In motion it still appears that way, at best pages were on the ground in the pile which would probably still be irresponsible.

Except at the start of the scene Penny says "Oh, just one more report to go." with the piles of paper in front of her. then she reaches for that one report [which is the paper Elvis slips on!] right before Elvis steps through the door.

It's obvious what they are. You can continue to speculate if you wish, but you could (have some time ago) come to the same conclusion as me if you you'd just...watch the scene.

 

[Craterloads]

So what do you think a Catholic Priest being beheaded does as a symbol or at least a symbolic representation of that belief? But a page in a book is (as one poster said) drawing a lot of outrage online?

I get the notion of: We should understand "why" it may be offensive but this is nothing of the kind.

How are the two even remotely comparable or being brought together into the same discusion?