THE HALF DECENT FOOTBALL MAGAZINE

That's about that then...

  • Jah Womble
  • Offline
  • Mummy, it's Provident
More
20 Jan 2013 18:46 - 20 Jan 2013 18:47 #753145 by Jah Womble

Talking of cartoon caricatures, oops.

Even in 2001, you'd have to have wondered what nutcase thought Savile was a workable caricature - or even reference point - for an audience of under-fives.
Last Edit: 20 Jan 2013 18:47 by Jah Womble.
  • Alderman Barnes
  • Offline
  • Under Marble Millichip
More
20 Jan 2013 18:58 #753151 by Alderman Barnes
Even so, isn't the BBC taking self-flagellation to the extreme here? This is absolutely ridiculous.
More
20 Jan 2013 19:14 - 20 Jan 2013 19:15 #753154 by Eggchaser

Alderman Barnes wrote: Even so, isn't the BBC taking self-flagellation to the extreme here? This is absolutely ridiculous.


No, it's an appallingly stupid editorial decision by the CBeebies team. Making it in 2001 before it all came out is one thing. Putting in on this morning is unbelievably dumb. My jaw pretty much dropped when I saw it.

The BBC is going to have to treat a lot of the Savile parody stuff like it's radioactive. WWE and Chris Benoit springs to mind in terms of non-factual programming.
Last Edit: 20 Jan 2013 19:15 by Eggchaser. Reason: A decade late!
  • Alderman Barnes
  • Offline
  • Under Marble Millichip
More
20 Jan 2013 19:29 #753156 by Alderman Barnes
I'm out of the country so maybe I'm misjudging it, but it seems like a hysterical overreaction to me. Are they going to have to fine-comb their entire output in case it contains traces of Savile?
More
20 Jan 2013 19:56 #753164 by Eggchaser
I think there's a difference between Savile in context and a parody, however innocent at the time, of a paedophile of huge proportions on a channel whose output is aimed squarely at kids. I have no doubt my daughter has no concept of Savile or sex but given the fearful pasting the BBC has taken over the affair you'd think they'd not hand fresh ammo to those who are less than complimentary about them at the best of times.
  • Vulgarian Visigoth
  • Offline
  • There's a fucking convention up here
More
20 Jan 2013 20:23 #753169 by Vulgarian Visigoth

Alderman Barnes wrote: I'm out of the country so maybe I'm misjudging it, but it seems like a hysterical overreaction to me. Are they going to have to fine-comb their entire output in case it contains traces of Savile?

I propose replacing 'Dieu et mon droit' with 'What will people say?!'
  • Jah Womble
  • Offline
  • Mummy, it's Provident
More
20 Jan 2013 22:33 #753207 by Jah Womble

No, it's an appallingly stupid editorial decision by the CBeebies team. Making it in 2001 before it all came out is one thing. Putting in on this morning is unbelievably dumb. My jaw pretty much dropped when I saw it.

The 'mistake' is in mass-production of programmes and then turning kids' channels into conveyor belts of said product. I shouldn't think those closest to what is broadcast on CBeebies have much idea of the specific content of any of their shows, they trot them out so many times. I wouldn't have thought 'editorial decision' enters into it: '10am (or whenever) is Tweenies-time - give them some Tweenies'.

It was a daft mistake and worthy of no more than a slapped wrist, IMO. (But - like I said upthread - what were they thinking anyway?)
More
20 Jan 2013 23:30 - 20 Jan 2013 23:37 #753219 by Janik
I'm with Jah. (heh!)

I strongly suspect that nobody checks the content of many programmes they re-run, and it was only after it was broadcast that anybody realised. Only an amoeba would have put that out if they had had any knowledge of what it contained.
'Tweenies series 2, Sun 10am slot, 13 programmes so that is 1/4 of the year covered. Sorted. Dig out the tapes would you, Susan?'

Alderman Barnes wrote: I'm out of the country so maybe I'm misjudging it, but it seems like a hysterical overreaction to me. Are they going to have to fine-comb their entire output in case it contains traces of Savile?


Pretty much. The tape in question will now have a great big toxic label on, if it hasn't already been destroyed. And some poor sods will be spending the next few weeks watching everything that these channels are going to broadcast over the next year in case there is anything similar in them.
Last Edit: 20 Jan 2013 23:37 by Janik.
  • Errorist Sympathiser
  • Offline
  • Not fucking raised by spiders
More
21 Jan 2013 07:17 - 21 Jan 2013 07:18 #753272 by Errorist Sympathiser
My kid was watching the show and I found it funny. I paused it and took a screengrab to show my friends for yucks. She complained at the inconvenience. She is 3 years old and has no idea who Savile was. She just thought Max was dressing up funny. Won't somebody think of the children?!?
Last Edit: 21 Jan 2013 07:18 by Errorist Sympathiser.
More
21 Jan 2013 13:34 #753358 by Eggchaser

indysleaze wrote: My kid was watching the show and I found it funny. I paused it and took a screengrab to show my friends for yucks. She complained at the inconvenience. She is 3 years old and has no idea who Savile was. She just thought Max was dressing up funny. Won't somebody think of the children?!?


Somebody did. Entirely too much...
More
24 Jan 2013 00:08 #754471 by Satchmo Distel
I used to assume that someone was employed at the BBC to vet all recorded output that was repeated. Maybe that person went when the Beeb started cutting costs, and maybe now that position will be restored?

On the other hand, I can recall stuff falling through the net in the 80s, like a Laurel & Hardy episode in which they are in blackface. The older the material, the more likely to offend, but it tends to be that old stuff that just gets showed into the schedule unvetted.
  • Jah Womble
  • Offline
  • Mummy, it's Provident
More
24 Jan 2013 10:59 #754627 by Jah Womble

I used to assume that someone was employed at the BBC to vet all recorded output that was repeated. Maybe that person went when the Beeb started cutting costs, and maybe now that position will be restored?

On the other hand, I can recall stuff falling through the net in the 80s, like a Laurel & Hardy episode in which they are in blackface. The older the material, the more likely to offend, but it tends to be that old stuff that just gets showed into the schedule unvetted.

Guidelines exist for producers in the first instance of course, and, as one might expect, are pretty stringent as regards kids' shows. However - if Tweenies for example was 'passed' back in 2001, it's highly unlikely that anyone at the top would've considered needing to reappraise every single episode in the time since. Attitudes haven't changed that much in the past dozen years. (Unlike the way that they have since Laurel & Hardy's films were produced...)

Still, this was one very rare instance in which an episode should have been double-checked, obviously, and highlights my earlier point about the mass-production and wall-to-wall nature of kids' channels per se...
  • ian.64
  • Offline
  • No bars can hold me, but a few pubs might.
More
24 Jan 2013 11:10 #754634 by ian.64
No, it's an appallingly stupid editorial decision by the CBeebies team. Making it in 2001 before it all came out is one thing. Putting in on this morning is unbelievably dumb. My jaw pretty much dropped when I saw it.

I'm with Jah when he says it's a mistake. For the sake of plonking anything on to fill them, I suggest schedules are thrown together with abandon and lack of thought. I refer to the complaints that followed an episode of Taggart that was shown in the afternoon on ITV1, I think, which contained a scene showing someone being force-fed bleach. It's also an indictment of shit, uncaring broadcasting which says that you can chuck any old crap on as long as there's someone who'll stick around to watch it.
More
29 Mar 2013 00:50 #780377 by Tubby Isaacs
Another arrest. 82 year old in Berkshire.

Lots of people seem to know who it is. More shit for the BBC.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21972689
More
29 Mar 2013 07:23 #780399 by Antepli Ejderha
Jim Davidson also got rearrested a few weeks ago.

So this latest arrest is a big name then Tubby?
More
29 Mar 2013 07:49 #780403 by NHH
Can you tell who it is yet, AE?
More
29 Mar 2013 07:53 #780404 by Antepli Ejderha

NHH wrote: Can you tell who it is yet, AE?


Ah the rumoured one. That was a clue and a half, well early for me to have caught that one. Cheers.
More
29 Mar 2013 08:10 #780407 by NHH
The entertainment stuff feels like a sideshow for the really toxic stuff around Elm House in Barnes - there's lots of people writing about this - including the press for 10 days in 1982 then they stopped. It's difficult to keep the right side of conspiracy theory-itis, but there's some stuff on the political cover ups of the guest list for the house which need urgent action, involving as it does a current minister, judges, former senior diplomats and spies.

The danger is that it gets into conspiracy stuff (which may be true, but feel more like stretching the linkages) and includes Michael Fagin's break-in to Buckingham Palace and the Westland Helicopter affair. That said, the thing about these networks is that they're pervasive and compel actions from people because everybody is beholden to everyone else, so it's certainly plausible.
More
29 Mar 2013 12:42 #780462 by Eggchaser
Is Operation Yewtree just investigating kiddy fiddling or is it all sorts of molesty type stuff?
  • Rogin the Armchair fan
  • Offline
  • I've met Riley, and yes, my life is not dissimilar
More
03 Apr 2013 20:05 #782114 by Rogin the Armchair fan
Channel 5 has just announced an episode of "Rolf's Animal Clinic" by saying that anyone nervous needs to know that from the start Rolf is going to be handling a big python.

I'm not joking it's on now
Time to create page: 0.689 seconds

Sign up for the WSC Weekly Howl

Just enter your email address