WH
that's the stupidest thing i've ever read.
The Sun and most other newspapers have been attacking the BBC for the past 40 years as they hate how it has guaranteed income and remains more popular than them.
The whole Tweenies thing is absurd and nobody apart from a few people who take offence as a way of life, nobody thought anything off it apart from it being a tad embarrassing.
A new logo will not magic away Jimmy Savile.
Agree with Pete here, what the Sun forget to mention (they may not have, I don't read it & TBH they usual miss of the real facts anyway), is this episode was made in 2001, long before the revelations & long forgotten about hence why the episode was broadcast.
A bit worrying that the BBC dont pre-screen childrens programming for unsuitable content.
Whataday
Founding member
Plus, the BBC have been through some rough times, with everything happening. Yesterday, The Sun had claimed parents were outrageous about Cbeebies broadcasting an episode of "The Tweenies" imitating Jimmy Saville.
This is all very bad, and the BBC may need a rebrand to at least refresh themselves as a company.
This is all very bad, and the BBC may need a rebrand to at least refresh themselves as a company.
that's the stupidest thing i've ever read.
The Sun and most other newspapers have been attacking the BBC for the past 40 years as they hate how it has guaranteed income and remains more popular than them.
The whole Tweenies thing is absurd and nobody apart from a few people who take offence as a way of life, nobody thought anything off it apart from it being a tad embarrassing.
A new logo will not magic away Jimmy Savile.
Agree with Pete here, what the Sun forget to mention (they may not have, I don't read it & TBH they usual miss of the real facts anyway), is this episode was made in 2001, long before the revelations & long forgotten about hence why the episode was broadcast.
A bit worrying that the BBC dont pre-screen childrens programming for unsuitable content.
CH
that's the stupidest thing i've ever read.
The Sun and most other newspapers have been attacking the BBC for the past 40 years as they hate how it has guaranteed income and remains more popular than them.
The whole Tweenies thing is absurd and nobody apart from a few people who take offence as a way of life, nobody thought anything off it apart from it being a tad embarrassing.
A new logo will not magic away Jimmy Savile.
Agree with Pete here, what the Sun forget to mention (they may not have, I don't read it & TBH they usual miss of the real facts anyway), is this episode was made in 2001, long before the revelations & long forgotten about hence why the episode was broadcast.
A bit worrying that the BBC dont pre-screen childrens programming for unsuitable content.
I think it's very rare that an episode broadcast in 2001 will now have content unsuitable in 2013.
Plus, the BBC have been through some rough times, with everything happening. Yesterday, The Sun had claimed parents were outrageous about Cbeebies broadcasting an episode of "The Tweenies" imitating Jimmy Saville.
This is all very bad, and the BBC may need a rebrand to at least refresh themselves as a company.
This is all very bad, and the BBC may need a rebrand to at least refresh themselves as a company.
that's the stupidest thing i've ever read.
The Sun and most other newspapers have been attacking the BBC for the past 40 years as they hate how it has guaranteed income and remains more popular than them.
The whole Tweenies thing is absurd and nobody apart from a few people who take offence as a way of life, nobody thought anything off it apart from it being a tad embarrassing.
A new logo will not magic away Jimmy Savile.
Agree with Pete here, what the Sun forget to mention (they may not have, I don't read it & TBH they usual miss of the real facts anyway), is this episode was made in 2001, long before the revelations & long forgotten about hence why the episode was broadcast.
A bit worrying that the BBC dont pre-screen childrens programming for unsuitable content.
I think it's very rare that an episode broadcast in 2001 will now have content unsuitable in 2013.
IS
Indeed, it will just be scheduled in a loop without much though put into it. I don't know how often it is on Cbeebies or how many episodes there are but if it lasted 3 years originally then it would be at least a year or 2 before each episode comes round again.
They (Red Bee) might not even load it onto their playout system for each showing, and if they do would it will be either automatic or with very little monitoring of content. Unless the particular reference was noted in the programmes paperwork and someone spotted it then who would notice. And there's there's no guarantee it would be flagged up as it was quite a minor and subtle reference until 6 months ago
They (Red Bee) might not even load it onto their playout system for each showing, and if they do would it will be either automatic or with very little monitoring of content. Unless the particular reference was noted in the programmes paperwork and someone spotted it then who would notice. And there's there's no guarantee it would be flagged up as it was quite a minor and subtle reference until 6 months ago
DE
All programme content has to be complied for transmission (by a BBC person, not Red Bee), and compliance only lasts for a period of 30 days, after which the programme has to be re-complied as suitable for broadcast. The compliance paperwork has space for reference to public figures, so this really should have been noted on that paperwork and spotted by whoever was re-complying it.
That said, I don't think any pre-schoolers will have been damaged by the reference to JS
That said, I don't think any pre-schoolers will have been damaged by the reference to JS
JA
There's 390 episodes, so if it's aired every day, it would take 389 days to show them all (Favourite Songs, the episode with the Savile skit, has now been banned). So short of a same day repeat, each episode would only be shown every 12 or 13 months. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tweenies
Indeed, it will just be scheduled in a loop without much though put into it. I don't know how often it is on Cbeebies or how many episodes there are but if it lasted 3 years originally then it would be at least a year or 2 before each episode comes round again.
RW
For most BBC programmes there is a list of broadcast dates and times since 2007 on the relevant programme page, but recently, most children's programme pages have very annoyingly started redirecting to the appropriate CBBC or CBeebies websites. For example, the episode page for 'Favourite Songs' at http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00784xt redirects to the CBeebies Tweenies homepage, as do all Tweenies episode pages.
However a google search of the BBC schedules shows that since 2007 'Favourite Songs' has been shown on 09/07/07, 17/09/07, 27/05/11, 06/05/12 and 20/01/13. So no particular pattern to the scheduling.
Robert Williams
Founding member
Indeed, it will just be scheduled in a loop without much though put into it. I don't know how often it is on Cbeebies or how many episodes there are but if it lasted 3 years originally then it would be at least a year or 2 before each episode comes round again.
For most BBC programmes there is a list of broadcast dates and times since 2007 on the relevant programme page, but recently, most children's programme pages have very annoyingly started redirecting to the appropriate CBBC or CBeebies websites. For example, the episode page for 'Favourite Songs' at http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00784xt redirects to the CBeebies Tweenies homepage, as do all Tweenies episode pages.
However a google search of the BBC schedules shows that since 2007 'Favourite Songs' has been shown on 09/07/07, 17/09/07, 27/05/11, 06/05/12 and 20/01/13. So no particular pattern to the scheduling.
MI
Taking this wildly off topic, but where does this end? OK - the trimming of the old TOTP eps is mildly understandable. Banning an episode of Tweenies because it's got a character dressed as a 70s DJ, albeit a social pariah? How pathetic. I doubt any of the kids would have got the reference.
What about all the episodes of Mock The Week that contain Hugh Dennis' impersonations of Savile? ("Sha-woddy-woddy"). Will they all have to be cut / bowdlerised?
There was an episode of QI in this series (or last, I or J) that included the lines "Jim fixed it for him didn't he? Did ALL the furniture in his house have hidden drawers in?" - is this now considered unsuitable for broadcast?
The final episode of Series 1 of Early Doors (Craig Cash pub sitcom) which has an extended sequence which goes as follows: (from memory so apologies for errors)
SCENE - all the lads are sat round a table after time smoking cigars and doing impressions.
DUFFY : Eh -- who's this then .... Dear Jimmy - can you fix it for us to get absolutely hammered at York Races, cop a right eyeful at the Bamboo Club, and then have old Tommy get a round of drinks in? Ooh I'm sorry, there are some things even Jimmy cannot fix. Sha-woddy-woddy!"
Is that to go?
What about that bit at the end of Peter Kay's Live At The Top Of The Tower where he gets the whole audience to sing along to the Jim'll Fix It theme tune? Is that now to be cut from any future broadcasts?
I read this week that they've cut out the Major's n****** and w*** line from a repeat showing of Fawlty Towers' The Germans (an episode which includes copious references to Hitler and the Nazis). Again, how pathetic. It's like the prudish breaking all the penises off Greek nude sculpture. That episode of that comedy is of its time and people like the Major existed back then - old school colonial army types with blinkered attitudes. In the 70s, those words weren't acceptable but the comedy stems from Major Gowen's inability to recognise or entertain the implications of his choice of vocabulary. It's the same train of thought that made Little Britain the success it is, playing on taboo and exploiting it for comic effect. Are we suddenly so sensitive that we are offended by the tiniest thing? Are modern humans so soft that we have to be exposed to a grey, standard language that rarely strays off its Orwellian path?
Similarly, are we so quick to take offence that an orange cloth puppet dressed as a generic 70s DJ on a programme aimed at entertaining the emotionally and socially immature giggle with pure, uncomplicated ribaldry that we feel the need to vent about it on the front pages of the tabloids? I know it's all about kicking the BBC when it's down, but there are comments posted on the webpages that make me think a) some people should have a mental competence test to be allowed access to an internet connection and b) some people shouldn't be allowed children. Those kids are going to be exposed to much much worse than a Savile Tweenie in their young lives (most of it going on inside the home of the kind of people who read the Sun) so why make such a fuss? Or is getting your name on a webpage with a load of green arrows or thumbs up next to it more important than cogent, logical, reasoned thought?
What about all the episodes of Mock The Week that contain Hugh Dennis' impersonations of Savile? ("Sha-woddy-woddy"). Will they all have to be cut / bowdlerised?
There was an episode of QI in this series (or last, I or J) that included the lines "Jim fixed it for him didn't he? Did ALL the furniture in his house have hidden drawers in?" - is this now considered unsuitable for broadcast?
The final episode of Series 1 of Early Doors (Craig Cash pub sitcom) which has an extended sequence which goes as follows: (from memory so apologies for errors)
SCENE - all the lads are sat round a table after time smoking cigars and doing impressions.
DUFFY : Eh -- who's this then .... Dear Jimmy - can you fix it for us to get absolutely hammered at York Races, cop a right eyeful at the Bamboo Club, and then have old Tommy get a round of drinks in? Ooh I'm sorry, there are some things even Jimmy cannot fix. Sha-woddy-woddy!"
Is that to go?
What about that bit at the end of Peter Kay's Live At The Top Of The Tower where he gets the whole audience to sing along to the Jim'll Fix It theme tune? Is that now to be cut from any future broadcasts?
I read this week that they've cut out the Major's n****** and w*** line from a repeat showing of Fawlty Towers' The Germans (an episode which includes copious references to Hitler and the Nazis). Again, how pathetic. It's like the prudish breaking all the penises off Greek nude sculpture. That episode of that comedy is of its time and people like the Major existed back then - old school colonial army types with blinkered attitudes. In the 70s, those words weren't acceptable but the comedy stems from Major Gowen's inability to recognise or entertain the implications of his choice of vocabulary. It's the same train of thought that made Little Britain the success it is, playing on taboo and exploiting it for comic effect. Are we suddenly so sensitive that we are offended by the tiniest thing? Are modern humans so soft that we have to be exposed to a grey, standard language that rarely strays off its Orwellian path?
Similarly, are we so quick to take offence that an orange cloth puppet dressed as a generic 70s DJ on a programme aimed at entertaining the emotionally and socially immature giggle with pure, uncomplicated ribaldry that we feel the need to vent about it on the front pages of the tabloids? I know it's all about kicking the BBC when it's down, but there are comments posted on the webpages that make me think a) some people should have a mental competence test to be allowed access to an internet connection and b) some people shouldn't be allowed children. Those kids are going to be exposed to much much worse than a Savile Tweenie in their young lives (most of it going on inside the home of the kind of people who read the Sun) so why make such a fuss? Or is getting your name on a webpage with a load of green arrows or thumbs up next to it more important than cogent, logical, reasoned thought?
BA
I think the BBC has every right to stop broadcasting episodes of a kids' show with an impression of the most prolific sexually-abusive paedophile ever.
IS
I didn't realise that, thanks. Maybe it was such a subtle reference it didn't get noted?
No, it would have gone over the heads of all of them. But it is absolutely the correct thing to pull future showings, it's now a wildly inappropriate thing to have in a kids programme
All programme content has to be complied for transmission (by a BBC person, not Red Bee), and compliance only lasts for a period of 30 days, after which the programme has to be re-complied as suitable for broadcast. The compliance paperwork has space for reference to public figures, so this really should have been noted on that paperwork and spotted by whoever was re-complying it.
I didn't realise that, thanks. Maybe it was such a subtle reference it didn't get noted?
Quote:
That said, I don't think any pre-schoolers will have been damaged by the reference to JS
No, it would have gone over the heads of all of them. But it is absolutely the correct thing to pull future showings, it's now a wildly inappropriate thing to have in a kids programme
RD
Brilliant post, Michael. Regrettably, the answer to all your questions on the Savile references is yes, they will all be cut (unless they accidentally slip through the net). The BBC is now a jibbering wreck, completely paranoid and neurotic about offending anyone. Little Britain would never have been commissioned in today's climate. Neither would Monty Python or The Day Today.
I for one would rather have no BBC at all than a BBC that's bland and shy.
More worrying, in my opinion, is the airbrushing of old TV programmes to comply with the benefit of hindsight and current standards of political correctness. It's a cancer eating away at the medium of television and film, yet people would be outraged at the idea of such a thing happening to literature or opera.
And it's not just a case of deletion. There are several examples of the BBC going to extraordinary lengths of employing David Jason soundalikes to overdub various words such as "gypsy" and "provo" in more recent screenings of Only Fools And Horses. The DVDs have also been butchered to death in the name of political correctness - there are entire websites devoted to it.
I've ranted about it several times before on this forum, but it's something that should concern us all. Imagine that all pre-20th century literature had been edited, with original copies expunged from history according the moral whims that were around in, say, 1955, a time when homosexuals were viewed in the same way, both morally and legally, as paedophiles are viewed today. (It was actually worse than that - those convicted of homosexual acts were typically offered a choice between life imprisonment or castration).
Some will undoubtedly argue that there will never be a time in the future when racism becomes acceptable again, and so the Major's n*****s and w**s line in Fawlty Towers should be permanently erased from the master copies. But that's missing the point. Viewers today, or at any time in the future, should be entitled to view a piece of television from 1975 in its original form and draw their own conclusions from it.
We're all at liberty to read unedited versions of The Bible or Shakespeare's works, which are awash with murder, rape, racism, sexism, homophobia and misogyny, so why have we given the self-appointed moral guardians the power to decide which snippets of old TV we are allowed to watch?
I for one would rather have no BBC at all than a BBC that's bland and shy.
More worrying, in my opinion, is the airbrushing of old TV programmes to comply with the benefit of hindsight and current standards of political correctness. It's a cancer eating away at the medium of television and film, yet people would be outraged at the idea of such a thing happening to literature or opera.
And it's not just a case of deletion. There are several examples of the BBC going to extraordinary lengths of employing David Jason soundalikes to overdub various words such as "gypsy" and "provo" in more recent screenings of Only Fools And Horses. The DVDs have also been butchered to death in the name of political correctness - there are entire websites devoted to it.
I've ranted about it several times before on this forum, but it's something that should concern us all. Imagine that all pre-20th century literature had been edited, with original copies expunged from history according the moral whims that were around in, say, 1955, a time when homosexuals were viewed in the same way, both morally and legally, as paedophiles are viewed today. (It was actually worse than that - those convicted of homosexual acts were typically offered a choice between life imprisonment or castration).
Some will undoubtedly argue that there will never be a time in the future when racism becomes acceptable again, and so the Major's n*****s and w**s line in Fawlty Towers should be permanently erased from the master copies. But that's missing the point. Viewers today, or at any time in the future, should be entitled to view a piece of television from 1975 in its original form and draw their own conclusions from it.
We're all at liberty to read unedited versions of The Bible or Shakespeare's works, which are awash with murder, rape, racism, sexism, homophobia and misogyny, so why have we given the self-appointed moral guardians the power to decide which snippets of old TV we are allowed to watch?