"The BBC's activities and ambitions are chilling"

[Bob The Skutter]

And now the Trust are enforcing their idiotic comedy guidelines too...

From BBC News
Satirical gameshow Mock The Week breached guidelines over comments aired about swimmer Rebecca Adlington, the BBC Trust has ruled.
Panellist Frankie Boyle's remarks about the Olympic champion were "humiliating" and "risked offending the audience".
The show, broadcast in August 2008 in the wake of the Beijing Olympics, prompted 75 complaints from viewers.
Its producer apologised in December, saying "the ribbing may have gone a tad too far on this occasion".
Final ruling
The trust's Editorial Standards Committee also concluded that double gold medallist Adlington had not courted publicity or celebrity status, making the personal remarks unjustified.
They added that the makers of Mock The Week, who allowed sexual innuendo and comments about Adlington's appearance to be included, failed to have an editorial reason for including them.

For those who don't remember the joke The Telegraph have kindly printed the joke

“Rebecca Adlington looks pretty weird. She looks like someone who’s looking at themselves in the back of a spoon. And then, when she arrived back on the flight [from the China Olympics], she met her boyfriend. Did you see her boyfriend? He was really attractive. He was like a male model. So from that I have deduced that Rebecca Adlington is very dirty. I mean, if you just take into account how long she can hold her breath…”

Now this pisses me off, it's just plain stupid. Mock the Week insults anyone and everyone, I don't see why there has to be an editorial justification for comedy, and if she didn't personally complain then why bother?

 

[Captain Shaw]

And now the Trust are enforcing their idiotic comedy guidelines too...

From BBC News
Satirical gameshow Mock The Week breached guidelines over comments aired about swimmer Rebecca Adlington, the BBC Trust has ruled.
Panellist Frankie Boyle's remarks about the Olympic champion were "humiliating" and "risked offending the audience".
The show, broadcast in August 2008 in the wake of the Beijing Olympics, prompted 75 complaints from viewers.
Its producer apologised in December, saying "the ribbing may have gone a tad too far on this occasion".
Final ruling
The trust's Editorial Standards Committee also concluded that double gold medallist Adlington had not courted publicity or celebrity status, making the personal remarks unjustified.
They added that the makers of Mock The Week, who allowed sexual innuendo and comments about Adlington's appearance to be included, failed to have an editorial reason for including them.

For those who don't remember the joke The Telegraph have kindly printed the joke

“Rebecca Adlington looks pretty weird. She looks like someone who’s looking at themselves in the back of a spoon. And then, when she arrived back on the flight [from the China Olympics], she met her boyfriend. Did you see her boyfriend? He was really attractive. He was like a male model. So from that I have deduced that Rebecca Adlington is very dirty. I mean, if you just take into account how long she can hold her breath…”

Now this pisses me off, it's just plain stupid. Mock the Week insults anyone and everyone, I don't see why there has to be an editorial justification for comedy, and if she didn't personally complain then why bother?

At this rate the BBC is going to kill themselves off.
The BBC needs some leaders with some ball's if it is going to survive.

 

[Zulu Romeo]

^^ Is it too late to suggest Chris Evans as DG?

 

[Captain Shaw]

Could Obama fit saving the BBC into his day?
Maybe the BBC news room should go digging and see how many MP's they can take down
Although these days i think they only thing that would force them out is if the BBC caught one of them murdering somebody and even then they would need a picture of the mp standing over the body with then knife in his/her hand.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

I actually complained about the ruling. I don't think they should reprimand any shows for the possibility of being offensive, especially comedy.

 

[Starkers]

I personally agree with the ruling, mainly down to this point...

The trust's Editorial Standards Committee also concluded that double gold medallist Adlington had not courted publicity or celebrity status, making the personal remarks unjustified.

I could care less if they take the piss out of the celebrity whores out there who court publicity, who put themselves in the firing line, or even sports stars with conspicuous lifestyles, for my money they ask for everything they get. To insult a young woman who, to my knowledge, has never done anyone any harm, who's actually one hell of a role model (and this country has precious few these days) on the basis that she's too ugly to get an attractive boyfriend unless shes dirty in the sack...sorry, call me middle aged, call me naive, but frankly I think there have to be limits.

Sadly I don't think the BBC is as untouchable as the NHS, but I do think it would take a huge act of will to see it dismantled and I don't know if any political party would want the hassle. I reckon it'll slowly be pecked to death. Too many people moan about the licence fee, like I say though, you'll miss it when its gone.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

I personally agree with the ruling, mainly down to this point...

The trust's Editorial Standards Committee also concluded that double gold medallist Adlington had not courted publicity or celebrity status, making the personal remarks unjustified.

I could care less if they take the piss out of the celebrity whores out there who court publicity, who put themselves in the firing line, or even sports stars with conspicuous lifestyles, for my money they ask for everything they get. To insult a young woman who, to my knowledge, has never done anyone any harm, who's actually one hell of a role model (and this country has precious few these days) on the basis that she's too ugly to get an attractive boyfriend unless shes dirty in the sack...sorry, call me middle aged, call me naive, but frankly I think there have to be limits.

Sadly I don't think the BBC is as untouchable as the NHS, but I do think it would take a huge act of will to see it dismantled and I don't know if any political party would want the hassle. I reckon it'll slowly be pecked to death. Too many people moan about the licence fee, like I say though, you'll miss it when its gone.

I understand where you're coming from, but if the complaint didn't originate from her then I don't see the problem. Most people have enough of a sense of humour about themselves to take a joke aimed at them, and to rule it breached standards because it could offend, well then everything on Mock the Week, or just about everything on TV, breaches standards, because there are people who will be offended by just about anything.

I also think they will die a death of a thousand cuts rather than one swift action that will kill them in a short time.

 

[Starkers]

looking at the Royal Mail, any government interference, (even more so when its for the reason of "cost cutting" ) is bad for something like the BBC, Royal Mail & the NHS.

I actually do not believe you should "cut costs" in public service as it rather misses the point.

for example, you could take the council run hotline to report broken street lamps and cut it down from 10am to 4pm, on the grounds that will save money only having to pay someone for those 6 hours, missing the point that people have lives and need to be able to report the fault when it suits them, which is what public service is about in my book.

As for the private company who will weeks later get around to fixing it, that is another story.

It's important to remember that the Public Sector isn't always brilliant and the private sector isn't always evil. Throwing money at public services that don't then run efficiently is just throwing money away, just look how much cash Labour has thrown at education and while things have improved they haven't improved as much as they should have done for the amount spent, an awful lot of money has dissapeared into black holes (and probably into the back pockets of management consultants).

 

[Bob The Skutter]

looking at the Royal Mail, any government interference, (even more so when its for the reason of "cost cutting" ) is bad for something like the BBC, Royal Mail & the NHS.

I actually do not believe you should "cut costs" in public service as it rather misses the point.

for example, you could take the council run hotline to report broken street lamps and cut it down from 10am to 4pm, on the grounds that will save money only having to pay someone for those 6 hours, missing the point that people have lives and need to be able to report the fault when it suits them, which is what public service is about in my book.

As for the private company who will weeks later get around to fixing it, that is another story.

It's important to remember that the Public Sector isn't always brilliant and the private sector isn't always evil. Throwing money at public services that don't then run efficiently is just throwing money away, just look how much cash Labour has thrown at education and while things have improved they haven't improved as much as they should have done for the amount spent, an awful lot of money has dissapeared into black holes (and probably into the back pockets of management consultants).

You could say the reverse is true as well. Private sector isn't always efficient or good at the job, mostly due to cost cutting and making profits on contracts by sub-contracting to cheaper contractors who do sub-standard jobs.
I think the problem with a lot of public sector services is that they try to run things that aren't a business as a business, and create expectations and pressure that shouldn't be placed on public sector jobs. Also management running non-profit organisations as if they're profit makers means jobs get cut and burden other workers with more to do.

 

[Starkers]

I personally agree with the ruling, mainly down to this point...

The trust's Editorial Standards Committee also concluded that double gold medallist Adlington had not courted publicity or celebrity status, making the personal remarks unjustified.

I could care less if they take the piss out of the celebrity whores out there who court publicity, who put themselves in the firing line, or even sports stars with conspicuous lifestyles, for my money they ask for everything they get. To insult a young woman who, to my knowledge, has never done anyone any harm, who's actually one hell of a role model (and this country has precious few these days) on the basis that she's too ugly to get an attractive boyfriend unless shes dirty in the sack...sorry, call me middle aged, call me naive, but frankly I think there have to be limits.

Sadly I don't think the BBC is as untouchable as the NHS, but I do think it would take a huge act of will to see it dismantled and I don't know if any political party would want the hassle. I reckon it'll slowly be pecked to death. Too many people moan about the licence fee, like I say though, you'll miss it when its gone.

I understand where you're coming from, but if the complaint didn't originate from her then I don't see the problem. Most people have enough of a sense of humour about themselves to take a joke aimed at them, and to rule it breached standards because it could offend, well then everything on Mock the Week, or just about everything on TV, breaches standards, because there are people who will be offended by just about anything.

I also think they will die a death of a thousand cuts rather than one swift action that will kill them in a short time.

Well I hope the BBC doesn't die, and if I'm honest I suspect there will always be a BBC, but I can see it being a lot smaller.

I think you have to draw a line somewhere, and I don't think Addlington's a fair target for mockery. Maybe a bit of gentle ribbing, the spoon comment alone isn't that terrible, and let's face it it is accurate, but they did go a bit far after that. Like I say, they can say what they like about the Jordan and Poshs of this world for all I care.

 

[Starkers]

looking at the Royal Mail, any government interference, (even more so when its for the reason of "cost cutting" ) is bad for something like the BBC, Royal Mail & the NHS.

I actually do not believe you should "cut costs" in public service as it rather misses the point.

for example, you could take the council run hotline to report broken street lamps and cut it down from 10am to 4pm, on the grounds that will save money only having to pay someone for those 6 hours, missing the point that people have lives and need to be able to report the fault when it suits them, which is what public service is about in my book.

As for the private company who will weeks later get around to fixing it, that is another story.

It's important to remember that the Public Sector isn't always brilliant and the private sector isn't always evil. Throwing money at public services that don't then run efficiently is just throwing money away, just look how much cash Labour has thrown at education and while things have improved they haven't improved as much as they should have done for the amount spent, an awful lot of money has dissapeared into black holes (and probably into the back pockets of management consultants).

You could say the reverse is true as well. Private sector isn't always efficient or good at the job, mostly due to cost cutting and making profits on contracts by sub-contracting to cheaper contractors who do sub-standard jobs.
I think the problem with a lot of public sector services is that they try to run things that aren't a business as a business, and create expectations and pressure that shouldn't be placed on public sector jobs. Also management running non-profit organisations as if they're profit makers means jobs get cut and burden other workers with more to do.

I wouldn't disagree with that assesment. I think the trouble is that often the need to make public sector organisations more efficient is dumbed down to 'make them run like a businesses' which doesn't always work. There needs to be a middle ground somewhere because inefficient public services aren't much better than cut back to the bones ones.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

I personally agree with the ruling, mainly down to this point...

I could care less if they take the piss out of the celebrity whores out there who court publicity, who put themselves in the firing line, or even sports stars with conspicuous lifestyles, for my money they ask for everything they get. To insult a young woman who, to my knowledge, has never done anyone any harm, who's actually one hell of a role model (and this country has precious few these days) on the basis that she's too ugly to get an attractive boyfriend unless shes dirty in the sack...sorry, call me middle aged, call me naive, but frankly I think there have to be limits.

Sadly I don't think the BBC is as untouchable as the NHS, but I do think it would take a huge act of will to see it dismantled and I don't know if any political party would want the hassle. I reckon it'll slowly be pecked to death. Too many people moan about the licence fee, like I say though, you'll miss it when its gone.

I understand where you're coming from, but if the complaint didn't originate from her then I don't see the problem. Most people have enough of a sense of humour about themselves to take a joke aimed at them, and to rule it breached standards because it could offend, well then everything on Mock the Week, or just about everything on TV, breaches standards, because there are people who will be offended by just about anything.

I also think they will die a death of a thousand cuts rather than one swift action that will kill them in a short time.

Well I hope the BBC doesn't die, and if I'm honest I suspect there will always be a BBC, but I can see it being a lot smaller.

I think you have to draw a line somewhere, and I don't think Addlington's a fair target for mockery. Maybe a bit of gentle ribbing, the spoon comment alone isn't that terrible, and let's face it it is accurate, but they did go a bit far after that. Like I say, they can say what they like about the Jordan and Poshs of this world for all I care.

I suspect if the BBC went from it's current PSB status they may become a subscription service similar to HBO or something, which would be preferable to being cut down to just being News/documentary/current affairs broadcasting, but I would hate to see it go that way too.

But what did they say really? That she is probably good in bed... when did that become an insult? It's no more offensive or insulting than what they'd throw at a random fat/ugly guy with a hot bird.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

It's important to remember that the Public Sector isn't always brilliant and the private sector isn't always evil. Throwing money at public services that don't then run efficiently is just throwing money away, just look how much cash Labour has thrown at education and while things have improved they haven't improved as much as they should have done for the amount spent, an awful lot of money has dissapeared into black holes (and probably into the back pockets of management consultants).

You could say the reverse is true as well. Private sector isn't always efficient or good at the job, mostly due to cost cutting and making profits on contracts by sub-contracting to cheaper contractors who do sub-standard jobs.
I think the problem with a lot of public sector services is that they try to run things that aren't a business as a business, and create expectations and pressure that shouldn't be placed on public sector jobs. Also management running non-profit organisations as if they're profit makers means jobs get cut and burden other workers with more to do.

I wouldn't disagree with that assesment. I think the trouble is that often the need to make public sector organisations more efficient is dumbed down to 'make them run like a businesses' which doesn't always work. There needs to be a middle ground somewhere because inefficient public services aren't much better than cut back to the bones ones.

I think there needs to be a basic standards committee for public bodies, and basically people not doing a satisfactory job should be fired. Your jobs at risk then you have a motivating factor to do good work.
I think that's the main problem with inefficient public and private sector organisations, people feel secure in their job even while doing poor work. But that's not to say people shouldn't be allowed a certain amount of freedom in their job, because generally happy workers are better workers.

 

[wamdue]

I think the problem with a lot of public sector services is that they try to run things that aren't a business as a business, and create expectations and pressure that shouldn't be placed on public sector jobs. Also management running non-profit organisations as if they're profit makers means jobs get cut and burden other workers with more to do.

ill agree with this point.

the greatest problem with the public services is obviously government, and the amount of stuff it dreams up.

Throw all the cash you like at something, if that cash comes with another manager and more paper work, chances are it wont help.

I will say that im fed up with talk of how public sector pensions are out of hand, the problem is not the public sector which has it right, its the private sector pensions that are the problems.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

I think the problem with a lot of public sector services is that they try to run things that aren't a business as a business, and create expectations and pressure that shouldn't be placed on public sector jobs. Also management running non-profit organisations as if they're profit makers means jobs get cut and burden other workers with more to do.

ill agree with this point.

the greatest problem with the public services is obviously government, and the amount of stuff it dreams up.

Throw all the cash you like at something, if that cash comes with another manager and more paper work, chances are it wont help.

I will say that im fed up with talk of how public sector pensions are out of hand, the problem is not the public sector which has it right, its the private sector pensions that are the problems.

I agree that government requirements are a big problem too, when they constantly shift the goalposts and don't give them time for them to get used to the new system before declaring it a failure and trying a new system then everything is doomed to failure and being a big waste of money.

And I think the whole thing of taking pension schemes away is a disgrace.

 

[Starkers]

Zomdue, managers aren't always the problem. Maybe its because I'm a manager and because I'm based on the admin side of the NHS but the notuion of too many managers not enough nurses really annoys me, organisation will always need manager, and they'll always need those back office staff (who else will sort out the payment of nurses hefty sick pay etc after all?)

I've worked in the NHS for almost 10 years now and much as I love the instituion it's horrible big, clunky and flawed. It also has a habit of having to reinvent itself every few years, going back to the method of working it had before which didn't work, its cyclical and it must waste billions, but the trouble is the populace won't accept that the NHS cannoty be perfect, so polititians constantly have to try to appear to be making it look/work better.

Public sector pensions are much better than their private sector cousins, and public sector staff can often retire a lot earlier than those in the private sector. This used to make sense as public sector pay really lagged behind the private sector, but nowdays there isn't as much space between the two as you'd think. Factor in longer holidays and far more leeway when it comes to sickness and performance and frankly I'm amazed anyone works in the private sector anymore!

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Zomdue, managers aren't always the problem. Maybe its because I'm a manager and because I'm based on the admin side of the NHS but the notuion of too many managers not enough nurses really annoys me, organisation will always need manager, and they'll always need those back office staff (who else will sort out the payment of nurses hefty sick pay etc after all?)

I've worked in the NHS for almost 10 years now and much as I love the instituion it's horrible big, clunky and flawed. It also has a habit of having to reinvent itself every few years, going back to the method of working it had before which didn't work, its cyclical and it must waste billions, but the trouble is the populace won't accept that the NHS cannoty be perfect, so polititians constantly have to try to appear to be making it look/work better.

Public sector pensions are much better than their private sector cousins, and public sector staff can often retire a lot earlier than those in the private sector. This used to make sense as public sector pay really lagged behind the private sector, but nowdays there isn't as much space between the two as you'd think. Factor in longer holidays and far more leeway when it comes to sickness and performance and frankly I'm amazed anyone works in the private sector anymore!

When people complain about managers/admin they mean the general management/admin staff who basically keep things working, they mean the over paid management consultants and the people who come up with new schemes that inevitably seem to make things worse, or fail to actually do their job and manage thing effectively so the staff end up getting snowed under.
I don't think anyone believes the NHS is perfect, or that it couldn't be improved some how, it's just that we see so many new rules and regs placed on them, and so many new targets, etc. they get asked to meet that it seems they're never left to actually just get on with their jobs, which might actually help in improving things.

 

[Starkers]

Yeah they do need to be allowed to get on with things. There are way too many new initiatives all the time. Targets are a useful tool, but too often they're seen as the be all and end all and that's wrong, they should be one form of measurement, not the whole shebbang!

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Yeah they do need to be allowed to get on with things. There are way too many new initiatives all the time. Targets are a useful tool, but too often they're seen as the be all and end all and that's wrong, they should be one form of measurement, not the whole shebbang!

Yep, they seem too focused on targets, numbers, results, etc. in far too many areas now. Let them do the job, if it's not working then consult the people doing the work, see why it isn't working, don't just stick another requirement on them and expect it to change the world.

 

[wamdue]

Zomdue, managers aren't always the problem. Maybe its because I'm a manager and because I'm based on the admin side of the NHS but the notuion of too many managers not enough nurses really annoys me, organisation will always need manager, and they'll always need those back office staff (who else will sort out the payment of nurses hefty sick pay etc after all?)

of course im not saying that the NHS does not need admin and managers, but does it need ALL the managers it has, and yes money spent on more nurses is more helpful to the NHS than money spent on new admin systems, and a new layer of management.