I have ... no words ...

What the heck? I am confused

If I was the BBC I'd ban Reading.

I mean- knitting a toy Paxman doll must be demeaning to men- making him out to be an object of ridicule, and suggesting he is just a worthless play thing.

Very sexist to men- Ban them!

Have todays students really become so fragile and precious, god help them when they hit the real world of work they will spend the rest of their life either suing everyone they meet or on anti depressants on a psychiatrists couch.

Yes, Banks lost the game on two counts, the misheard answer and in mistakenly thinking she couldn't speak until Jeremy had finished asking the question.

I don't think I've ever heard a bigger audience reaction after the gong.

Regarding Reading's flounce-out.

The episode in question is this one, I think
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwlEXyG_Lzo

Maybe Reading didn't like being described as "nice".
Unless the issue is the standard failing of UC: that very few women take part, even though they make up over half of all students and get 50% of first and 2-1 degrees.

One daughter at university currently - very academic university since unlike me she is really clever. She attends meetings on this and that. Common theme is female students soon speak about discrimination and start bemoaning their lot. All women join in except my daughter who keeps quiet. Eventually they ask her why she has not commented and ask is she not a feminist? Daughter replies that she has not been discriminated against yet so has nothing to speak about and that while she believes women and men should be treated equally, so would count herself a feminist, she is also religious but doesn't generally mention that in general company either. She then asks them to talk through the workplace or educational discrimination they have experienced. So far no one has actually listed any cases.

Her conclusion has been that there is a sort of sexism hysteria within the student body, and probably outside, at the moment. This incident it seems speaks to the same issue. People looking for problems which aren't there. Not which don't exist at all but which aren't where they are looking. It speaks to the students desperately wanting to be victims and looking for any opportunity to become one.

Would have to question why it is a failing that there are fewer female contestants? Spoke of my daughter in another post already. She would have no interest in taking part in UC because her priorities are her career and her volunteering. As long as the most capable women have the same opportunity then they should be free to not take part if they don't want to.

I believe the programme makers have expressed "concern" over the issue. Many others have noticed it, but there appears to be little appetite within the student body itself to actually do anything.
It makes an easy target for those who merely count heads and tick boxes. But as you say, so long as people have the opportunity to make it onto a team that should be enough. However, each university has its own way of selecting team members.

Just had a look at the start of that.

In his intro Paxo says Reading has 13,000 students.

This student union motion was passed by 120 votes to 105- so that's 12,880 who didn't vote for it.

I live in Reading and some of the departmental student societies come across as pillocks to be frank, things like racially offensive behaviour during freshers' week. It's usually Hooray Henry types rather than militant feminists, though.

There is a bit more from Paxman in the Mail.

There was a break in the recording because of a problem and they were just chatting to fill in time.
He made the comment in the studio in front of the studio audience
It took eighteen months for them to complain!

I was only talking about the teddy bear! Jeremy Paxman reveals why Reading students are boycotting University Challenge

Whoever took it to the Student's Union should be expelled for making the university look stupid!

Why would that be the show's "failing"? Don't imagine the producers have much influence on team selection, and I'm sure the vociferous SJWs who have infested the universities for so long would be quick to pounce upon any perceived "bias" or "discrimination" in the selection process.

Someone should put Samantha Buzzard in a broken lift with Donald Trump for half an hour.

Then she really would have something to complain about.

Well I never knew it was made by ITV.

It says a lot though when various unions think people like Germaine Greer or Peter Tatchell are now unsuitable speakers. Ridiculous behaviour.

Started in 1962 as a Granada production, so ITV still have the rights- but hardly an ITV type programme these days.

When on ITV it was the only half hour programme (apart from schools and religious programmes) to have no commercial break in the middle.

It is all about tolerance apparently odd that the student unions seem to be the ones shunning tolerance for their own version, Safe Rooms, no clapping in case it upsets someone and banning people from events if they are white ( that happened at Goldsmiths amongst others, they banned white people from an anti racism event ) ! and all of this is supposed to improve equality and improve relations ? All I know is the people who come up with this crap I certainly would not want working for me, they cause more harm than they do good.

It's more that the colleges just don't get females willing to try out for the team (Caitlin Moran has oft said that this kind of quiz just isn't a girl thing!). This emerged from the reaction to an article in t'Guardian (I think) about the 'problem'. As the winning captain (fronting the most entertaining and charming team ever!) from last series showed there's nothing stopping them if they so desire.

How right you are. This one-sided censorship of ideas which go against the "correct" views has been going on at least since the 1970s to my knowledge, when the social justice warriors at my Uni were outraged that somebody had been invited to speak there and instigated a campaign of "no platform for fascists or racists". Then as now, this kind of reaction indicates an inability to argue a case properly and reasonably, it being much easier to shout slogans with your chums and print leaflets.

They want freedom of speech (as long as it's only what they think should be said) and tolerance (for their own beliefs and no others).

Oh, and they are very keen on banning things, and people. W*nkers.

Do the Students' Unions still get their money direct from the university fees?

It's a long time since I was at university but in those days the grant went to the university and they paid a proportion to the Students' Union so they got their money however bad they were and of course most people took no interest in Students' Union politics.

The various reports of Students' Unions wanting to leave the National Union of Students makes me think that things have not changed much (if at all).

The boys from Birmingham were awfully slow giving the bonus answers. It was borderline wasting time. But hey Greenlees knows a lot

But to be fair St. Andrews were pretty crap they had no chances of winning anyway.

No more so than any other team, I didn't think, and at least one of their bonus rounds was rattled off at record speed. Jezza's usually pretty hot on anybody that's really eating up the clock. I keep meaning to watch an episode with a stopwatch in my hand just to see but I think it usually evens out reasonably well. And as you suggest, St Andrews basically lost it on the buzzer.

Does make me wonder if they need to change to a system with a clock running. The noises on some other programmes can be annoying but they serve a purpose.

I hope they get a warning before the next programme that they must answer quicker.

If they wanted to cheat, at least they should do it smart. This doesn't look smart.

I am surprised Paxman didn't lash out and refuse their answers because they took bloody ages to come out.

I really don't think that's necessary. Firstly, I see no evidence of any team actually deliberately wasting time. They are genuinely trying to ferret the correct response out of their brains. Secondly it's not a clear cut advantage to eat up the clock even when you're winning (unless it's by several miles in which case it really doesn't matter anyway). The scores can turn around so quickly that it may well be that the time you've eaten up is actually the time you need yourself to get one final question in to catch up. Jeremy's nagging seems more than sufficient monitoring to me.