God knows why but I've got Sh*tterball on at the moment and they're doing a word search, looking for six girl's names. Three answers have already been found - one of them being - SEAN.
Looks like Glitterball is having its rawlplugs moment. Ofcom - come here now!
God knows why but I've got Sh*tterball on at the moment and they're doing a word search, looking for six girl's names. Three answers have already been found - one of them being - SEAN.
Looks like Glitterball is having its rawlplugs moment. Ofcom - come here now!
They're now insisting that Sean is a bona fide girl's name. Maybe it is - it was correctly guessed by a contestant after all. I don't think they were banking on anyone guessing it, though, and there must have been some colourful language in the gallery...
God knows why but I've got Sh*tterball on at the moment and they're doing a word search, looking for six girl's names. Three answers have already been found - one of them being - SEAN.
Looks like Glitterball is having its rawlplugs moment. Ofcom - come here now!
With reference to the ITV1 phone-in show as broadcast 19 April 2007.
At around 2:00am, the game being played was a word search containing six girl's names. Callers who correctly guessed one of the names won up to £1000 for their right answer.
One of the girl's names, which was correctly identified by a caller, was SEAN.
I am rather concerned that in light of recent debate over these phone-in programmes, another programme has featured a game with what could legitimately be construed as a misleading answer. In echoes of the well-publicised "rawl plugs" incident, I believe many or even most viewers could not reasonably have expected Sean to be a girl's name. However I also acknowledge that a viewer correctly guessed the answer, so I could be wrong.
I would urge you to look into this matter as soon as possible and determine whether there has been any wrongdoing on the part of the series' producers.
You should have signed it off Mrs Sean Jones to really take the piss!
Back to regulation - and what should ICSTIS have done? I'm not going to claim to know the answer, but they should have been more pro-active than re-active. If the press can unearth these issues, then surely ICSTIS should have too.
As for alternatives to fines - not going to claim to know the answer to that too, but almost all those involved have offered full refunds - and if the compensation was going to the viewer, rather than the treasury, it be fair enough.
The truth is though any money paid in fines has to be recouped from somewhere - and ultimately it'll be the viewers and participants that pay the price.
Back to regulation - and what should ICSTIS have done? I'm not going to claim to know the answer, but they should have been more pro-active than re-active. If the press can unearth these issues, then surely ICSTIS should have too.
Ummm... the press "unearthed" these issues AFTER they'd happened. They were themselves "re-active".
Brekkie Boy posted:
As for alternatives to fines - not going to claim to know the answer to that too, but almost all those involved have offered full refunds - and if the compensation was going to the viewer, rather than the treasury, it be fair enough.
There should be both compensation/refunds and what the USians call "punitive damages"
- i.e., fines.
Brekkie Boy posted:
The truth is though any money paid in fines has to be recouped from somewhere - and ultimately it'll be the viewers and participants that pay the price.
So, they should be allowed to get off from cheating the participants scot-free because they might cheat the participants? Okaaaaaaaaayyy...
God knows why but I've got Sh*tterball on at the moment and they're doing a word search, looking for six girl's names. Three answers have already been found - one of them being - SEAN.
Looks like Glitterball is having its rawlplugs moment. Ofcom - come here now!
With reference to the ITV1 phone-in show as broadcast 19 April 2007.
At around 2:00am, the game being played was a word search containing six girl's names. Callers who correctly guessed one of the names won up to £1000 for their right answer.
One of the girl's names, which was correctly identified by a caller, was SEAN.
I am rather concerned that in light of recent debate over these phone-in programmes, another programme has featured a game with what could legitimately be construed as a misleading answer. In echoes of the well-publicised "rawl plugs" incident, I believe many or even most viewers could not reasonably have expected Sean to be a girl's name. However I also acknowledge that a viewer correctly guessed the answer, so I could be wrong.
I would urge you to look into this matter as soon as possible and determine whether there has been any wrongdoing on the part of the series' producers.
Just out of interest Simon, what were the other answers?
Just out of interest Simon, what were the other answers?
I suppose they would have been
[list][*]Jeremy
[*]Stephen
[*]James
[*]
Anya, Bo and another which I can't remember. At least I've heard of these two - Bo being the name of Ulrika Jonsson's daughter (hope that doesn't mean we'll have another sexually charged Swede on our hands!)
(said like Stephen Merchant as Darren after attempting to flush his blocked toilet in Extras).