I was so disappointed

I thought the second part even better than the first... sad that one pup was lost but on the whole a thoroughly brilliant program but then most things I've see with Gordon Buchanan have been most watchable.

Thing is- he was supposed to observe and film the wolves from afar- but then as they go used to him being there- one or two of the young wolves became over curious, and perhaps even over hungry- and got closer and closer- until nearly touching nose- and unscripted, totally surprised, bewildered and even scared- he swore- without thinking about it. As said, I think anyone put in that amazing situation would have- although these are words I never ever use. Very different to a scripted play or story.

I like that, jura— thinking about why a person says a certain thing and in what circumstances. As a friend of mine always used to say: "Listen to the meaning, not the words." And it sounds as if the meaning in this case was something like "I am completely awed and amazed by this". Somehow that doesn't quite have the passion and immediacy of what was actually said. He didn't say what he said offensively therefore it wasn't offensive.

NanKate btw what expression do you normally use when totally amazed or taken by surprise.

I made grandkids laugh this holiday by using really silly old expressions, like 'blooming Nora' and 'oh my giddy aunt' - which they'd never heard.
Their father is from a very good home and was well brought up and has an excellent and senior job, but he uses the 'f' word a bit too liberally for my liking- but somehow it is not too offensive coming from him- a bit like Billy Conolly.

"You can say anything about Christianity but goodness mention Mohammed blessings be upon him in anything but the most fulsome terms and the dear old BBC get their knickers in a twist ."

Yes, and this just teaches Muslims that violence is the way to get what they want.

I use good grief!

crun I am sorry, but what on earth has Islam got with this thread?

Have I missed something, is Gordon a convert to Islam who was insulting Christianity? Don't think so.

I object to this thread being used to attack Islam and Mohammad (p.b.u.h.).

If you don't like what the presenter said then that's fine but you can't use your feelings about someone using Christian words to go on to attack another faith.

If you want to start a thread attacking Islam or any other faith feel free to do so but be prepared to argue your case.

I have noticed recently that being made to 'feel uncomfortable' is increasingly being used to constrain other people's freedom of speech and action, whether intentional or not. So, for example, sexist language is not acceptable under any circumstances while offensive comments about religion or using 'Jesus' as an expletive is. Is it because more people are now offended by sexist language than by blasphemy?

Gordon has done so much work to promote animal conservation; tigers, polar bears, brown bears and now wolves. He risks his life sometimes to do so. It seems wrong to critiscise him for what was an unscripted comment...they could hardly say 'cut' and shoot the scene again could they? Far better to use time and energy to attack the person who 'accidentally' shot Echo recently imo.

I don't understand blasphemy if it is considered an offence against God. God, if s/he exists, is surely big enough to deal with the blasphemer and no human punishment is necessary. On the other hand, I would not deliberately offend a person of faith by, in their eyes, blaspheming. But that is a matter of courtesy. I am worried about the use, in some countries, of blasphemy laws that appear to be being used as weapons against neighbours in disputes about other matters.

Is it because more people are now offended by sexist language than by blasphemy?

Yes, I think that's the case - most people in this country are not god-fearing and so don't recognise the crime/sin of blasphemy.

I noticed nankate and it irritated me. Not the blasphemy as such (I'm not religious) but the continued expostulation and the limited nature of expressions such as 'Jesus wept'. Not the sort of thing David Attenborough ever needed to say! I feel DA set such a high standard that anyone who makes wildlife documentaries now feels a need to imitate as best they can. I hate the forced whispering they all do!

Lovely programme, blasphemy aside, some great shots of young wolves.

p.s. I do have a number of religious friends and I always feel guilty if I utter 'oh my god' in their hearing!

Granjura: Stansgran made the point that the BBC shy away from anything that might offend Muslims, and as Thatbags pointed out, people have been murdered for such 'offences'. My point is that Islam shouldn't be held up as an example to aspire to, because when the BBC let themselves be frightened off by the threat of this kind of reaction, that just teaches people that they can get their way with violence, or the threat of it.

I really have no interest whatsoever in the difference between one brand of religion and another, but I do object when getting offended is seen as a valid alternative to evidence and reasoned argument as a means of debate.

I realise that in my naivety I have opened up a can of worms with this thread and to be honest I wish I had kept my mouth shut, but that's me, speak first regret later.

So to round things off. I watched the second programme and thoroughly enjoyed it.

I agree with Lizzie that David Attenborough is the ultimate in wild life presenters, oh and I like Chris Packham too.

Happy New Year to you all and thanks for all your responses. Over and definitely out.

Don't worry, nankate, it's all good exercise for the brain to bring up and to discuss contentious subjects. I'm all for it

hear hear, thatbags

Crun, of course I see what you mean. But felt there was little point in bringing this up in this thread. The comment was unscripted and totally natural in the circumstances . Would be very different if it was in a sit-com, or whatever.

Totally agree that some extreme Muslims should not dictate what is written or shown- but it is besides the point.

anniez, not everyone can be a D Attenborough. Thank goodness! Wonderful man though he no doubt is, one of him is quite enough. The same applies to all other admirable people in my view.

Plus, I don't find "Jesus wept!" any more limited than "Oh my goodness, look at that!" or "Golly gosh!" or "Wow!" They all mean the same thing if they are used in the same way. #meaningnotwords

I brought it up, jura, though indirectly. It was deliberate. I think the comparison is important. It is wrong to make what some people call blasphemy a crime. What's blasphemy to one person is a complete nothing to someone else. Blasphemy hurts no-one.

Of course blasphemy hurts people! If you have a religion that you love and someone mocks it mercilessly, as has happened in the past on Gransnet, then it is very painful for the believers.

I think a complete lack of empathy for the feelings of others is a very sad thing.

Going back to where I was at in my last post...

Putting Islam and Christianity and all other religions aside for a moment, my point is that thuggery (killing people for saying something you don't like) is thuggery, whatever the religion or nationality or race or any other distinguishing feature the thugs have. For this reason I am not in favour of blasphemy laws because they just give thugs an excuse to do something in the name of whichever god they worship.

I understand people's dislike of the use of certain words. I wince at certain expressions myself, depending on how they are used. But one can get over that upset. It's not, after all, about the person who feels upset. The expression mentioned in the OP was an expression of the high emotion of the person saying it. Other people's interpretations of what was said are up to them.

Meaning matters more than mere words.

To go back to my last post on this subject, it's easy to be calm and rational about something you are indifferent to. If someone on GN gave examples of a television presenter making sexist, racist or homophobic exclamations or comments I think the reaction from the liberal squad might be quite different. I'm with the OP and jingl. We should try to avoid giving offence to others whether we agree they 'ought' to be offended or not.

Part of me still feels that we should steer clear of offending certain factions, because of the possible ramifications. For instance, the controversy with the recently released film about Kim Jong, should the film makers have gone out of their way to incur the wrath of a despot? although I rather suspect his anger is conveyed by a lot of hot air. Free speech and the right to offend is a core belief in the West, but I think we should all be mindful of how something we would perceive, such as the Danish cartoons of Mohammed, as no big deal, can actually unleash a whole load of trouble, so is it worth it?

thatbags, you present a very balanced and well reasoned point of view and I agree with everything you say but the inner coward lurking within sometimes takes the "don't rock the boat" vision of certain situations!

Back to the programme- I did enjoy it but felt that Gordon was very repetitive, saying the same things over and over. I knew, I got the point early on that this has rarely (but not never- who put the GPS tag on the big wolf?) been done before. He ramped up the concern all the time eg saying the cubs looked starving. I thought they actually looked very fit and healthy but I suppose they need to create a drama, to make the filming the story, rather than just the wolves. They seem to do that nowadays. That's OK but its not David Attenborough. The wolves were beautiful.