BB
Do BBC fans still trust BBC after this . As they say BBC is the most trust broadcaster in world.
TI
Of course I still trust the BBC. I hardly call a 10p phone call a 'premium rate' line. Its Rip off ITV with its 75p per call for ITV play, and £1 per call for the comps on This Morning, X factor etc that’s a bl00dy con.
As for that Biddy Baxter, she should keep her nose out! This is BP in the 21 century! Kids (well most kids) don’t want the rubbish they make with empty plastic bottles and cardboard boxes. They want comps, celebs and that Gethin who keeps taking his kit off! Blue peter has changed since your day Biddy, if they kept it how she wanted it, i.e. stuck in the past, the show would have been dropped years ago!
bbcresistance posted:
Do BBC fans still trust BBC after this . As they say BBC is the most trust broadcaster in world.
Of course I still trust the BBC. I hardly call a 10p phone call a 'premium rate' line. Its Rip off ITV with its 75p per call for ITV play, and £1 per call for the comps on This Morning, X factor etc that’s a bl00dy con.
As for that Biddy Baxter, she should keep her nose out! This is BP in the 21 century! Kids (well most kids) don’t want the rubbish they make with empty plastic bottles and cardboard boxes. They want comps, celebs and that Gethin who keeps taking his kit off! Blue peter has changed since your day Biddy, if they kept it how she wanted it, i.e. stuck in the past, the show would have been dropped years ago!
JO
Maybe I'm missing something here but why couldn't they just flash a message on screen saying something along the lines of this:
'Due to technical difficulties we are unable to play our competetion today. Callers have not been charged for their call.'
I know some of the money went to charity but it is horribly wrong to con children who had no chance of getting through to the studio.
Surely displaying a message and cancelling the competetion for one day would have been easier then searching through the audience and finding someone to pose as a caller? It seems like common sense to me
'Due to technical difficulties we are unable to play our competetion today. Callers have not been charged for their call.'
I know some of the money went to charity but it is horribly wrong to con children who had no chance of getting through to the studio.
Surely displaying a message and cancelling the competetion for one day would have been easier then searching through the audience and finding someone to pose as a caller? It seems like common sense to me
TI
Or one of the presenters could have said - "sorry but due to a technical problem today, we are unable to announce the results to today’s competition, but we'll have them for you on tomorrow's programme"
plucky duck92 posted:
Maybe I'm missing something here but why couldn't they just flash a message on screen saying something along the lines of this:
'Due to technical difficulties we are unable to play our competetion today. Callers have not been charged for their call.'
I know some of the money went to charity but it is horribly wrong to con children who had no chance of getting through to the studio.
Surely displaying a message and cancelling the competetion for one day would have been easier then searching through the audience and finding someone to pose as a caller? It seems like common sense to me
'Due to technical difficulties we are unable to play our competetion today. Callers have not been charged for their call.'
I know some of the money went to charity but it is horribly wrong to con children who had no chance of getting through to the studio.
Surely displaying a message and cancelling the competetion for one day would have been easier then searching through the audience and finding someone to pose as a caller? It seems like common sense to me
Or one of the presenters could have said - "sorry but due to a technical problem today, we are unable to announce the results to today’s competition, but we'll have them for you on tomorrow's programme"
IS
But it wasn't Blue Peter as such, it was one member of the production team who made the wrong decision in the heat of the moment. From what Biddy Baxtor suggested today not even the producer knew what was happening at the time.
It's cock up rather than conspiracy
Steven O posted:
Kids are told when younger not to tell lies - yet a long-running show such as Blue Peter has lied to thousands of kids in order to get round a technical difficulty, simply because a junior member of staff panicked.
What kind of message does that send out? That telling lies is OK?
What kind of message does that send out? That telling lies is OK?
But it wasn't Blue Peter as such, it was one member of the production team who made the wrong decision in the heat of the moment. From what Biddy Baxtor suggested today not even the producer knew what was happening at the time.
It's cock up rather than conspiracy
IS
Yes that's what should have happened- although of course they'd have had to have found something to fill the time that would have been taken up by the item.
And I'm sure that's what would have happened if someone senior had taken the decision, but they didn't
plucky duck92 posted:
Maybe I'm missing something here but why couldn't they just flash a message on screen saying something along the lines of this:
'Due to technical difficulties we are unable to play our competetion today. Callers have not been charged for their call.'
I know some of the money went to charity but it is horribly wrong to con children who had no chance of getting through to the studio.
Surely displaying a message and cancelling the competetion for one day would have been easier then searching through the audience and finding someone to pose as a caller? It seems like common sense to me
'Due to technical difficulties we are unable to play our competetion today. Callers have not been charged for their call.'
I know some of the money went to charity but it is horribly wrong to con children who had no chance of getting through to the studio.
Surely displaying a message and cancelling the competetion for one day would have been easier then searching through the audience and finding someone to pose as a caller? It seems like common sense to me
Yes that's what should have happened- although of course they'd have had to have found something to fill the time that would have been taken up by the item.
And I'm sure that's what would have happened if someone senior had taken the decision, but they didn't
JO
But it wasn't Blue Peter as such, it was one member of the production team who made the wrong decision in the heat of the moment. From what Biddy Baxtor suggested today not even the producer knew what was happening at the time.
It's cock up rather than conspiracy
Most probably, considering it was a junior perhaps they paniced and just did what they did, there's no conspiracy as everyone keeps saying when something bad happens in this country
Inspector Sands posted:
Steven O posted:
Kids are told when younger not to tell lies - yet a long-running show such as Blue Peter has lied to thousands of kids in order to get round a technical difficulty, simply because a junior member of staff panicked.
What kind of message does that send out? That telling lies is OK?
What kind of message does that send out? That telling lies is OK?
But it wasn't Blue Peter as such, it was one member of the production team who made the wrong decision in the heat of the moment. From what Biddy Baxtor suggested today not even the producer knew what was happening at the time.
It's cock up rather than conspiracy
Most probably, considering it was a junior perhaps they paniced and just did what they did, there's no conspiracy as everyone keeps saying when something bad happens in this country
NG
I don't think it would be possible to "uncharge" people for their calls that easily...
noggin
Founding member
plucky duck92 posted:
Maybe I'm missing something here but why couldn't they just flash a message on screen saying something along the lines of this:
'Due to technical difficulties we are unable to play our competetion today. Callers have not been charged for their call.'
I know some of the money went to charity but it is horribly wrong to con children who had no chance of getting through to the studio.
Surely displaying a message and cancelling the competetion for one day would have been easier then searching through the audience and finding someone to pose as a caller? It seems like common sense to me
'Due to technical difficulties we are unable to play our competetion today. Callers have not been charged for their call.'
I know some of the money went to charity but it is horribly wrong to con children who had no chance of getting through to the studio.
Surely displaying a message and cancelling the competetion for one day would have been easier then searching through the audience and finding someone to pose as a caller? It seems like common sense to me
I don't think it would be possible to "uncharge" people for their calls that easily...
NG
Absolutely.
I just think it's a sad sign of the times that Blue Peter are inviting kids to ring premium rate numbers in the first place. Even if it's only 10p, and even if the money goes to charity, it still serves to wean children on to the premium rate telephone industry.
When I was a kid, BP got their viewers to raise money for charity by collecting aluminium drinks cans, and all over the country kids were rifling through litter bins and hedges for whatever they could find. It got kids out of the house, busy and active, and made the streets a bit cleaner too. They probably wouldn't allow it nowadays as it would endanger children's health and safety. Far better to have them slumped in front of the telly calling premium rates on their mobiles; in a few years they can move on to the "harder stuff" and start calling Quiz Call.
That isn't quite how it worked. The phone line wasn't the main fund raising method - after all it only raised a couple of hundred quid (3.25p per call - 14000 calls)
The BBC are quite strict about the way they use premium rate phone services - and one very strong stipulation is that the money generated by such calls cannot go directly back to the production (unlike ITV and other commercial broadcasters, who use them to subsidise their shows)
The money returned to the BBC CAN go to funding the phone-in service itself - so if it is an expensive service that allows calls to be split regionally (so you can analyse voting patterns across the UK), the cost of doing this doesn't come from the programme budget if enough calls are made.
However the call cost should be set so that the BBC doesn't make a "profit" on such calls. If the programme is associated with a charity - like Comic Relief or Strictly Come Dancing - then the BBC can donate the excess money to this charity, though it should state how much of the call cost will be donated, so people are aware of it.
In the US, some shows use freephone 0800-style numbers for voting in reality shows, however these are commercial channels, who have both sponsorship and advertising revenue to fund their budgets, not just a licence fee. (I'd rather my licence fee went directly into programmes and didn't subsidise phone voting)
noggin
Founding member
rdobbie posted:
Inspector Sands posted:
Eeee, in my day it were all 'write your answer on the back of a postcard'!
Absolutely.
I just think it's a sad sign of the times that Blue Peter are inviting kids to ring premium rate numbers in the first place. Even if it's only 10p, and even if the money goes to charity, it still serves to wean children on to the premium rate telephone industry.
When I was a kid, BP got their viewers to raise money for charity by collecting aluminium drinks cans, and all over the country kids were rifling through litter bins and hedges for whatever they could find. It got kids out of the house, busy and active, and made the streets a bit cleaner too. They probably wouldn't allow it nowadays as it would endanger children's health and safety. Far better to have them slumped in front of the telly calling premium rates on their mobiles; in a few years they can move on to the "harder stuff" and start calling Quiz Call.
That isn't quite how it worked. The phone line wasn't the main fund raising method - after all it only raised a couple of hundred quid (3.25p per call - 14000 calls)
The BBC are quite strict about the way they use premium rate phone services - and one very strong stipulation is that the money generated by such calls cannot go directly back to the production (unlike ITV and other commercial broadcasters, who use them to subsidise their shows)
The money returned to the BBC CAN go to funding the phone-in service itself - so if it is an expensive service that allows calls to be split regionally (so you can analyse voting patterns across the UK), the cost of doing this doesn't come from the programme budget if enough calls are made.
However the call cost should be set so that the BBC doesn't make a "profit" on such calls. If the programme is associated with a charity - like Comic Relief or Strictly Come Dancing - then the BBC can donate the excess money to this charity, though it should state how much of the call cost will be donated, so people are aware of it.
In the US, some shows use freephone 0800-style numbers for voting in reality shows, however these are commercial channels, who have both sponsorship and advertising revenue to fund their budgets, not just a licence fee. (I'd rather my licence fee went directly into programmes and didn't subsidise phone voting)
BR
I blame the parents - after all 12 kids were there with their parents on that day and it's took one of them four months and a nationwide scandal to realise it was wrong!
Now, surely if they were responsible parents they'd have had a word with the producers and threatened to reveal all unless all their kids got a prize!
Now, surely if they were responsible parents they'd have had a word with the producers and threatened to reveal all unless all their kids got a prize!
RO
It seems a bit odd that one of the parents said on news 24 "all the kids in the studio were very dissapointed" when they realised the compertition was fixed. Yet if they were so dissapointed why has it taken so long for this to come out?
It seems the person who made the decision to 'fake' the result couldnt win either way- they would have been under pressure to fill the alloted space on the running order.
It seems the person who made the decision to 'fake' the result couldnt win either way- they would have been under pressure to fill the alloted space on the running order.