Unfortunately this "laissez-faire" attitude gave rise to me including this as one of my "Laws of Television."
"Viewers get the standard of television they deserve."
If you continue to watch crap, that's what the networks will go on serving up.
Why pick out one part of my post and jump on it, I am going on about needless complaints and this being one of them. I don't see the need to complain to the BBC about what seemed to be an honest mistake and as I said elsewhere I will not defend Jimmy Saville for 1 second but will defend the BBC and people using Saville as a stick to beat the BBC with.
For a start none of the children will understand this, it was made in 2001 and it is a growing part of the complaining culture in the UK at the minute, some are warranted but this seemed to be an honest mistake therefore it is an embarrassment for CBEEBIES but its not like it was made last week
I fully agree with this balanced answer to this thread.
Firstly the OP has got the channel wrong, I assume he didn't watch the programme ? But it was on CBEEBIES a completely different BBC children's channel.
As the programme was made in 2001, and for kids I am sure no one wrote down includes a resemblance of a DJ that looks like Jimmy Savile.
It wasn't made recently and the kids watching wouldn't know anything of the background but enjoy the programme, only adults watching might have had an idea that in the current climate that any reference to JS is considered inappropriate.
However the character wasn't rude, it was a bit of fun.
Some people will do anything to try to jump on the BBC, and any slight issue.
Storm in a tea cup is far too strong!!!
OP should get their facts right before they open a thread. !!
I fully agree with this balanced answer to this thread.
Firstly the OP has got the channel wrong, I assume he didn't watch the programme ? But it was on CBEEBIES a completely different BBC children's channel.
As the programme was made in 2001, and for kids I am sure no one wrote down includes a resemblance of a DJ that looks like Jimmy Savile.
It wasn't made recently and the kids watching wouldn't know anything of the background but enjoy the programme, only adults watching might have had an idea that in the current climate that any reference to JS is considered inappropriate.
However the character wasn't rude, it was a bit of fun.
Some people will do anything to try to jump on the BBC, and any slight issue.
Storm in a tea cup is far too strong!!!
OP should get their facts right before they open a thread. !!
For cryin' out loud stop splitting hairs.
To me CCCB means Children's BBC.
If you start wanting to suggest there's a significant and important difference between the kids' TV channels, then I think you're watching too much kids' television.
I started the thread because BBC news had "headlined" the situation such is their paranoia now over criticisms regarding Savile. I said it was "unfortunate" in my original post. I guess that's what you'd call "jumping on" given your obvious frame of mind.
That's why I suggested that they've probably got people going through the old kid's programmes now as they did with editions of TOTP.
The programme in question which was a repeat, was as I said over a decade old and probably those involved in the original production couldn't remember the content.
Why don't you read all the thread and understand that no one is taking it that seriously, before jumping on your hobby-horse?
Unfortunately this "laissez-faire" attitude gave rise to me including this as one of my "Laws of Television."
"Viewers get the standard of television they deserve."
If you continue to watch crap, that's what the networks will go on serving up.
I don't see any implication that Tweenies was "crap", rather that there was an unfortunate oversight with a reference that would have been reasonable and innocuous at the time it was made (or even less than 4 months ago), to the point it may not even have been noted in their internal programme summary.
Yes, they should have apologised, but that was it. Most people will see it as an understandable mistake, and accept the apology.
If the BBC excessively pander to a disproportionately vocal "Daily Mail" type minority, viewers *will* get the television they deserve (or not)- bland, apologetic pablum that, ironically, will still fail to placate those who exist to be offended, and dislike the BBC on principle.
I fully agree with this balanced answer to this thread.
Firstly the OP has got the channel wrong, I assume he didn't watch the programme ? But it was on CBEEBIES a completely different BBC children's channel.
As the programme was made in 2001, and for kids I am sure no one wrote down includes a resemblance of a DJ that looks like Jimmy Savile.
It wasn't made recently and the kids watching wouldn't know anything of the background but enjoy the programme, only adults watching might have had an idea that in the current climate that any reference to JS is considered inappropriate.
However the character wasn't rude, it was a bit of fun.
Some people will do anything to try to jump on the BBC, and any slight issue.
Storm in a tea cup is far too strong!!!
OP should get their facts right before they open a thread. !!
I don't see any implication that Tweenies was "crap", rather that there was an unfortunate oversight with a reference that would have been reasonable and innocuous at the time it was made (or even less than 4 months ago), to the point it may not even have been noted in their internal programme summary.
Yes, they should have apologised, but that was it. Most people will see it as an understandable mistake, and accept the apology.
If the BBC excessively pander to a disproportionately vocal "Daily Mail" type minority, viewers *will* get the television they deserve (or not)- bland, apologetic pablum that, ironically, will still fail to placate those who exist to be offended, and dislike the BBC on principle.
I didn't imply it either. My response was entirely to suggest that if no one ever complained, (just grumbled to ourselves but carried on watching) we'd continue to get a lot of crap programmes.
Once again.
My original post suggested that the situation reported as "News Headlines" by the BBC themselves, was unfortunate. Not a disaster of catastrophic proportions, though from some of the responses you'd think I had.
Some seem to want to make "a federal case" out of it, but that's the nature of this board.
I find that quite amusing.
For cryin' out loud stop splitting hairs.
To me CCCB means Children's BBC.
If you start wanting to suggest there's a significant and important difference between the kids' TV channels, then I think you're watching too much kids' television.
There is a difference; CBeebies is for under-5s, CBBC for children aged 6-11. Very different audience and hence different kind of programming. It was a perfectly understandable mistake, but don't act as if it wasn't a mistake or that there's no real difference.
I do find the BBC's 'let's pretend that Savile never existed' approach to be rather amusing though.
People are aware that these programmes were made several years ago and, unless they're just complaining for the sake of it (as some will always do), no one is distressed or offended by references to Savile or anyone else.
Maybe they should edit all mentions of Hitler out of the History Channel's output too.
There is a difference; CBeebies is for under-5s, CBBC for children aged 6-11. Very different audience and hence different kind of programming. It was a perfectly understandable mistake, but don't act as if it wasn't a mistake or that there's no real difference.
Hmm..
As I said earlier, in my experience and that of many other parent's of children many kids will watch anything.
Once again, my original post was:
A bit unfortunate the BBC showing a kid's programme with a Jimmy Savile character, the other morning.
But then if they will recycle twelve year old programmes without checking the content.
My point being, a situation caused by sticking old programmes in the schedules.
So exactly at which group age group the programme was targeted was of little importance in this context. I made no mention of any possible affect on children.
Now, did you understand "making a federal case out of it?"
Maybe they should edit all mentions of Hitler out of the History Channel's output too.
My son was watching an old Dr Who episode on DVD yesterday (Sylvester McCoy I think) and as well as the Cybermen the baddies were clearly Nazi officers. I asked him if they were and he claimed that there'd been a picture of Hitler on a wall somewhere in the episode. That Dr Who was from the early-mid 80s - can you imagine the furore if the fuhrer (geddit? ) was even suggested as a reference in a children's TV prog these days? I reckon we've lost our sense of proportion with this desperation to hide anything deemed 'bad'.
WRT to Tweenies, there's no way it would have shown on the prog's listing & references for checking prior to transmission. Exactly what would the play-out ops be looking for? Character list? Savile not mentioned. ToTP gags / references? Doubt it.
And just how much do we need to keep on being disgusted at him? He was a foul man, but he's dead. I may be wrong but I don't think any of his evil deeds made it onto the screen. Let him rot in his own stench, but let's not all pretend to be shocked & disgusted every time he or his name pops up on tv.
My son was watching an old Dr Who episode on DVD yesterday (Sylvester McCoy I think) and as well as the Cybermen the baddies were clearly Nazi officers. I asked him if they were and he claimed that there'd been a picture of Hitler on a wall somewhere in the episode. That Dr Who was from the early-mid 80s - can you imagine the furore if the fuhrer (geddit? ) was even suggested as a reference in a children's TV prog these days? I reckon we've lost our sense of proportion with this desperation to hide anything deemed 'bad'.
I don't think there would be any furore at all if Hitler was shown as a baddy in a children's TV programme. I can imagine there would be one if the "goodies" were Nazi officers.
But I have heard that there is an old Dr Who episode with Jimmy Savile references in it; I daresay the DM would kick up a fuss if that were shown on TV now.
Like many I've been tempted by the furore into taking a look at this on utube - it was quite hilarious, but given the lyrics of the song he introduced - 'One finger, one thumb' I suspect the whole thing was actually an inside joke at time by someone who had a good idea what JS was really like. Otherwise why have a character impersonate a DJ whom none of their intended audience would have heard of?
As I said earlier, in my experience and that of many other parent's of children many kids will watch anything.
Once again, my original post was:
A bit unfortunate the BBC showing a kid's programme with a Jimmy Savile character, the other morning.
But then if they will recycle twelve year old programmes without checking the content.
My point being, a situation caused by sticking old programmes in the schedules.
So exactly at which group age group the programme was targeted was of little importance in this context. I made no mention of any possible affect on children.
Now, did you understand "making a federal case out of it?"
The issue of which channel it was on is indeed irrelevant, and had you just said when this was pointed out, "Oh well, my mistake, but it doesn't really affect what we're talking about", it would never have been an issue. It became one because you sneered at people for knowing things that such a superior person as you would find beneath their notice.
That's why things become "a federal case" with you; because you antagonise people.
I'll make a confession, not that within the context, the outcome will make a blind bit of difference. I'm quite happy to admit to not knowing or caring about the name of one naffin' BBC kid's programme or channel from another.
Like I said. "Who cares; just let the BBC bashing commence." :rolleyes:
Like many I've been tempted by the furore into taking a look at this on utube - it was quite hilarious, but given the lyrics of the song he introduced - 'One finger, one thumb' I suspect the whole thing was actually an inside joke at time by someone who had a good idea what JS was really like. Otherwise why have a character impersonate a DJ whom none of their intended audience would have heard of?
But I have heard that there is an old Dr Who episode with Jimmy Savile references in it; I daresay the DM would kick up a fuss if that were shown on TV now.
Is there? You could be right but I've seen every existing episode of Who, 650+ of them, many of them several times, and I remember no Saville.
Though a lot of the old ones feature a level of violence that the beeb would never put out in a show with a large kids audience now, I don't imagine they'd repeat them en masse anyway.
Some people don't worry about facts when BBC-bashing
And this threads at least a couple of days late. So late, in fact, that he missed the band-waggon completely
Like I said. "Who cares; just let the BBC bashing commence." :rolleyes:
You could have stopped and been entirely accurate.
Though it's ironic that you should have that POV as you seem to be the among the first to 'stick the boot in' on occasion.
Also ironic, then that, on this occasion, you're a few days late
I respectfully suggest it might be something to do with your posting history on the subject of the BBC
Err..
I was being entirely accurate, read my first post again.
It was a post made on the day the item appeared on the BBC's "red button" as "headline news" presumably as it was considered as "important as world events," so it wasn't late at all.
You're making me smile again, I've only to suggest that something is "white" and up you pop almost immediately with your usual bag of silly smilies to quote my post and say it's "black," as if anyone really cared.
Why not have an opinion on an actual topic rather than for ever criticise and make deliberate and incorrect assumptions of other people's views?
Comments
I thought the problem with Savile was entirely one of things being blown out of proportion.
Why pick out one part of my post and jump on it, I am going on about needless complaints and this being one of them. I don't see the need to complain to the BBC about what seemed to be an honest mistake and as I said elsewhere I will not defend Jimmy Saville for 1 second but will defend the BBC and people using Saville as a stick to beat the BBC with.
I fully agree with this balanced answer to this thread.
Firstly the OP has got the channel wrong, I assume he didn't watch the programme ? But it was on CBEEBIES a completely different BBC children's channel.
As the programme was made in 2001, and for kids I am sure no one wrote down includes a resemblance of a DJ that looks like Jimmy Savile.
It wasn't made recently and the kids watching wouldn't know anything of the background but enjoy the programme, only adults watching might have had an idea that in the current climate that any reference to JS is considered inappropriate.
However the character wasn't rude, it was a bit of fun.
Some people will do anything to try to jump on the BBC, and any slight issue.
Storm in a tea cup is far too strong!!!
OP should get their facts right before they open a thread. !!
For cryin' out loud stop splitting hairs.
To me CCCB means Children's BBC.
If you start wanting to suggest there's a significant and important difference between the kids' TV channels, then I think you're watching too much kids' television.
I started the thread because BBC news had "headlined" the situation such is their paranoia now over criticisms regarding Savile. I said it was "unfortunate" in my original post. I guess that's what you'd call "jumping on" given your obvious frame of mind.
That's why I suggested that they've probably got people going through the old kid's programmes now as they did with editions of TOTP.
The programme in question which was a repeat, was as I said over a decade old and probably those involved in the original production couldn't remember the content.
Why don't you read all the thread and understand that no one is taking it that seriously, before jumping on your hobby-horse?
I don't see any implication that Tweenies was "crap", rather that there was an unfortunate oversight with a reference that would have been reasonable and innocuous at the time it was made (or even less than 4 months ago), to the point it may not even have been noted in their internal programme summary.
Yes, they should have apologised, but that was it. Most people will see it as an understandable mistake, and accept the apology.
If the BBC excessively pander to a disproportionately vocal "Daily Mail" type minority, viewers *will* get the television they deserve (or not)- bland, apologetic pablum that, ironically, will still fail to placate those who exist to be offended, and dislike the BBC on principle.
Yep, and this will make the DM scream "License payer's money wasted on people paid to watch TV all day!"
Hard to argue with any of that.
Maybe.
I hope the thought doesn't keep you up at nights.
I didn't imply it either. My response was entirely to suggest that if no one ever complained, (just grumbled to ourselves but carried on watching) we'd continue to get a lot of crap programmes.
Once again.
My original post suggested that the situation reported as "News Headlines" by the BBC themselves, was unfortunate. Not a disaster of catastrophic proportions, though from some of the responses you'd think I had.
Some seem to want to make "a federal case" out of it, but that's the nature of this board.
I find that quite amusing.
It does bug me rather - damned if they do...damned if they don't.
There is a difference; CBeebies is for under-5s, CBBC for children aged 6-11. Very different audience and hence different kind of programming. It was a perfectly understandable mistake, but don't act as if it wasn't a mistake or that there's no real difference.
People are aware that these programmes were made several years ago and, unless they're just complaining for the sake of it (as some will always do), no one is distressed or offended by references to Savile or anyone else.
Maybe they should edit all mentions of Hitler out of the History Channel's output too.
Exactly, the age group tweenies is aimed at would be reading a more sophisticated paper than the Daily Mail
Hmm..
As I said earlier, in my experience and that of many other parent's of children many kids will watch anything.
Once again, my original post was:
A bit unfortunate the BBC showing a kid's programme with a Jimmy Savile character, the other morning.
But then if they will recycle twelve year old programmes without checking the content.
My point being, a situation caused by sticking old programmes in the schedules.
So exactly at which group age group the programme was targeted was of little importance in this context. I made no mention of any possible affect on children.
Now, did you understand "making a federal case out of it?"
WRT to Tweenies, there's no way it would have shown on the prog's listing & references for checking prior to transmission. Exactly what would the play-out ops be looking for? Character list? Savile not mentioned. ToTP gags / references? Doubt it.
And just how much do we need to keep on being disgusted at him? He was a foul man, but he's dead. I may be wrong but I don't think any of his evil deeds made it onto the screen. Let him rot in his own stench, but let's not all pretend to be shocked & disgusted every time he or his name pops up on tv.
I don't think there would be any furore at all if Hitler was shown as a baddy in a children's TV programme.
But I have heard that there is an old Dr Who episode with Jimmy Savile references in it; I daresay the DM would kick up a fuss if that were shown on TV now.
As for JS, the National Archives are keeping his Clunk Click ad online http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/films/1964to1979/filmindex.htm and there's a still for him on his filmography page on the BFI website. Where d'you draw the line?
The issue of which channel it was on is indeed irrelevant, and had you just said when this was pointed out, "Oh well, my mistake, but it doesn't really affect what we're talking about", it would never have been an issue. It became one because you sneered at people for knowing things that such a superior person as you would find beneath their notice.
That's why things become "a federal case" with you; because you antagonise people.
And this threads at least a couple of days late. So late, in fact, that he missed the band-waggon completely
Like I said. "Who cares; just let the BBC bashing commence." :rolleyes:
You could have stopped and been entirely accurate.
Though it's ironic that you should have that POV as you seem to be the among the first to 'stick the boot in' on occasion.
Also ironic, then that, on this occasion, you're a few days late
I respectfully suggest it might be something to do with your posting history on the subject of the BBC
Lol.... I hadn't thought if that.
Is there? You could be right but I've seen every existing episode of Who, 650+ of them, many of them several times, and I remember no Saville.
Though a lot of the old ones feature a level of violence that the beeb would never put out in a show with a large kids audience now, I don't imagine they'd repeat them en masse anyway.
Err..
I was being entirely accurate, read my first post again.
It was a post made on the day the item appeared on the BBC's "red button" as "headline news" presumably as it was considered as "important as world events," so it wasn't late at all.
You're making me smile again, I've only to suggest that something is "white" and up you pop almost immediately with your usual bag of silly smilies to quote my post and say it's "black," as if anyone really cared.
Why not have an opinion on an actual topic rather than for ever criticise and make deliberate and incorrect assumptions of other people's views?
Such behaviour is a bit pathetic.
I'm glad you agree, so any further comment by you was "indeed irrelevant," so why add more?