I have the BBC news website set as my homepage.
Like most people, I'd imagine, I'm drawn to the articles that are displayed in the 'Most Popular' list.
So today I noticed – and bear in mind today is the day that news broke of Apple CEO and co-founder Steve Jobs sadly passing away, a HUGE news story around the globe – the most read news story at the time I looked was "Banned film rated 18 after cuts".
Of course, I had to have gawp myself.
And what did I learn?
Some b-movie horror flick called Human Centiped II has appeased the censors enough to be made legal.
Just how much value does the publicity given by being the top story on the BBC website provide? It's almost as if getting 'banned' is GREAT for business eh?
And my point?
For those who've read my views on dog breed bans you'll understand why I think they are ridiculous, misguided and fatally flawed.
For one, you can't actually 'ban' a type of dog. But more to the specific point of this post, banning things simply piques interest and attention like you wouldn't believe!
Making a dog 'forbidden' is, of course, going to make it attractive to a particular type of person who, frankly, is going to perpetuate the problems that this much maligned dog has had to endure for many years.
Banning liquor in the prohibition era = massive fail. People still drank, criminals got rich.
Banning films – massive fail. It just drives huge volumes of publicity and ultimately leads people (like me) to watch some utter, utter tripe simply in the name of curiosity.
Banning dogs = massive fail. It creates death and misery, costs tax payer's a fortune and has anyone anywhere ever been able to prove that it's saved a single life?