[BBC News] Clarkson joke sparks complaints

[P.K.]

They don't have to pander to a commercial audience, that makes them creatively unique and the best broadcaster in the world. Sadly that's now being systematically destroyed by the Antiques Roadshow crowd.

Dear Mr Slim,

 

Please enlighten me on how you garner your facts that those complaining about Clarkson et al also watch the Antiques Roadshow? I'd be fascinated to find out how you do it. Errr - you don't do it though, do you. It's all bollocks as you try to push your current theme that only those more senior in years would find the tasteless, childish, puerile antics of overpaid "celebrities" objectionable - based on zero evidence. Never mind, I put it down to "The Woss and Bland Collateral Damage Show", the latest hit from your favourite aunty.

 

Yours sincerely

 

A TV Licence Payer

 

PS - the best broadcaster on the planet only stays on pole by having high standards...

[Declan]

Who is that person? Can we all email to tell him that this isn't anything to do with the Isle of Man?

 

three letters -

 

M

 

C

 

B

?

 

No she didn't get the job.

[Lost Login]

Skeddan

 

Will you stop trying to quote the BBC charter etc when it is clearly beyond you to read and understand

 

Of the bits you quote the relevent bit for you to understand is that it states the "main Object is...." Main does NOT mean only as you appear to believe it does

 

The relevant texts regarding 'what the BBC should be doing' is the Charter and Agreement.

 

This from the Charter:

3. The BBC’s public nature and its objects

(1) The BBC exists to serve the public interest.

(2) The BBC’s main object is the promotion of its Public Purposes.

4. The Public Purposes

The Public Purposes of the BBC are as follows—

(a)sustaining citizenship and civil society;

(b)promoting education and learning;

©stimulating creativity and cultural excellence;

(d)representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities;

(e)bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK;

(f) in promoting its other purposes, helping to deliver to the public the benefit of emerging communications technologies and services and, in addition, taking a leading role in the switchover to digital television.

 

Maybe my limited exposure to Top Gear means I fail to fully appreciate the value of the programme.

 

Can anyone explain how Top Gear serves the public interest and meets the objective of promotion of the BBC's Public Purposes?

 

If it doesn't, then as far as I can see the BBC shouldn't be doing it. If I'm wrong about that, then please show relevant provisions of the BBC's constitution which would make this part of its remit.

[Sneak]

I've only seen the programme a few times recently. (I used to quite enjoy it many moons ago before it sank to becoming a lads vroom vroom show). As far as I could see it only seemed to encourage loutish boy-racer petrolhead behaviours (not a good thing given appalling road accident statistics), and did nothing to promote or encourage safe responsible driving. If it was setting out to appeal to lads and louts while promoting good behaviours rather than bad, I could understand having a crass loud mouthed presenter. But it doesn't - if anything it seems to only engender such behaviours. I can't understand how the programme should be considered part of 'Public Services' according to public service broadcasting. It 'coarsens the standards of public life' - by that test the programme as is should be scrapped.

 

Is that why there are a lot of women in the audience?

[Sneak]

What does that statement mean? It's just sidestepping the issue. The viewers may have clear expectations about his being provocative, but that doesn't mean it is acceptable on the BBC.

 

Suppose Clarkson was test driving a German car and made quips about how it's sturdy build was ideal for running down Jews, and the exhaust could be fed in to gas them if that didn't work. Now imagine the BBC responding to complaints with the above statement. IMO it would be insulting.

 

It's a no-brainer - the correct action is to suspend the presenter and producer immediately.

 

Get a life you sad git, or at least a sense of humour.

[Slim]

Can anyone explain how Top Gear serves the public interest and meets the objective of promotion of the BBC's Public Purposes?

 

"stimulating creativity and cultural excellence;"

 

That's a pretty broad directive, and one that fits top gear pretty well.

 

 

Please enlighten me on how you garner your facts that those complaining about Clarkson et al also watch the Antiques Roadshow? I'd be fascinated to find out how you do it. Errr - you don't do it though, do you. It's all bollocks as you try to push your current theme that only those more senior in years would find the tasteless, childish, puerile antics of overpaid "celebrities" objectionable - based on zero evidence. Never mind, I put it down to "The Woss and Bland Collateral Damage Show", the latest hit from your favourite aunty.

 

PS - the best broadcaster on the planet only stays on pole by having high standards...

 

 

Na, the BBC stays on pole by having broad standards and not being dragged down by commercial necessity.

 

As to how I garner my facts, a number ways. I know quite a few posters on here, and I know in the Brand and Ross thread that pretty much everyone pro was under 40 and everyone anti over. I also saw the beeb interview two queues at television centre in the aftermath, one was for a youth show, one for Titmarsh. Guess the results? This is an age/taste issue, anything else is bluster.

 

There's facebook, a traditionally young site, which has more members in it's 'Support Russell Brand' group than complained to the Beeb.

 

There's also bunch of columns that have said the same thing, eg:

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/neil_mccormic...rational_divide

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/comme...and-984645.html

 

Got any evidence that it's not an issue of an age divide PK?

 

You don't like Ross and Brand, you've written them off before you've even given them a chance. I bet you've never even seen Brand perform, your comments about him certainly don't fit any of his acts I've seen (including his radio show, seeing him live, ponderland, many interviews and a couple of his movies).

 

Out of interest, what have you seen Brand do, and what example of besides this recent slip was childish and purile?

 

Anyway, looking forward to Dara O'Briain, I'm off to see him Thursday. He sensibly said "We are now entering day seven of man-has-his-feelings-hurt-gate. I stand by 100% any of the things we've ever said. There's no way we can ever do a show while thinking 'Will David Davies MP approve of this?' Not all shows are intended for all people." Hopefully there'll be a daily mail detector on the door and us sane folks can enjoy an uncensored evening.

 

Bosh. I won't watch PK's fave show (Which would be LAUGH AT SUCCESSFUL PEOPLE BEING SHIT ON), and he ignores mine and we're all happy, eh?

 

I'll Finish with Mayer, the co-writer of 1980s sitcom The Young Ones who said: "The result of this lamentable affair could well be to gag a generation of comic talent and stifle spontaneity and cutting-edge humour."

 

That's you that is, PK.

[Saltire]

I think it's also worth pointing out that it's only Skeddan who has made repeated racist comments about Jews and 'niggers' under the guise of illustrating his rather weak point. You Sir, are acting like a troll.

 

Skeddan is trying to put words into Clarkson's mouth that JC has the innate sense and decency not to use himself.

 

 

Edited to add:

 

3. The BBC’s public nature and its objects

(1) The BBC exists to serve the public interest.

 

7 million viewers a week are interested. Your case is dismissed.

 

Totally agree. Most folk who watch Top Gear know what Clarkson is like, they tend to watch it for the comments and banter between the presenters rather than think they are watching a factual car show about which hatchback to buy.

 

Is this what is going to happen from now on, every comment made by a BBC presenter is going to be complained about? Especially in a programme that is known for the comments the presenters make.

 

The difference about the Ross/Brand stunt was they directed it at an individual personally and that individual took offence.

[P.K.]

Got any evidence that it's not an issue of an age divide PK?

You're the one making the claims Mr Slim, not me. Or did you forget that bit?

 

Let's see your facts Mr Slim i.e. put up or shut up.

[Slim]

Let's see your facts Mr Slim i.e. put up or shut up.

 

Er I did. And if you're going to criticise me, shouldn't you also have some backup? I'll sneak a quick sensible quote in so this isn't a pointless post:

 

Don Foster, the Lib Dem media spokesman, one of few politicians to display sympathy:“We should all think long and hard about what will happen to many of the wonderfully innovative BBC programmes, which many of us take for granted, if producers are no longer prepared to take risks.”

[P.K.]

Jeeeze, where have you been? I guess with your head up there you wouldn't have seen it. One of the major issues, that hopefully the BBC enquiry and OFCOM will tease out, is that the "performers" can either replace or bully the producers into whatever risk the "performers" want to take. So it's not a case of producers being "risk takers" at all! Ferrkinell.

[Slim]

Jeeeze, where have you been? I guess with your head up there you wouldn't have seen it. One of the major issues, that hopefully the BBC enquiry and OFCOM will tease out, is that the "performers" can either replace or bully the producers into whatever risk the "performers" want to take. So it's not a case of producers being "risk takers" at all! Ferrkinell.

 

Irrelevant, that was from before you purple rinsed tutters got hold of the story.

[P.K.]

Irrelevant, that was from before you purple rinsed tutters got hold of the story.

I always like it when the personal insults start coming out. They tell me everything I need to know about the person making them...

[Slim]

[ always like it when the personal insults start coming out. They tell me everything I need to know about the person making them...

 

At least I responded to the point, which is more than you did then. That tells me even more. You asked for evidence in the other thread, when I'd already posted it here, you having trouble keeping up?

 

I'll rephrase in case you missed it: the stories about Brand sacking his production team (which seems to be arse, he owned the production company) are all from before this incident. The quote you responded to was referring to what will happen as a result of this. Are you able to grasp that timeline PK?

[Skeddan]

Skeddan

 

Will you stop trying to quote the BBC charter etc when it is clearly beyond you to read and understand

 

Of the bits you quote the relevent bit for you to understand is that it states the "main Object is...." Main does NOT mean only as you appear to believe it does

No, I don't think 'main' means 'only' in 'The BBC's main object is the promotion of its Public Purposes'.

 

If you want to go into further detail, yes, of course the BBC may also carry out other activities - e.g. commercial ventures and so on, but these should not run contrary to the Public Purposes.

 

5(2)The BBC may also carry out other activities which directly or indirectly promote the Public Purposes, but such activities should be peripheral, subordinate or ancillary to its main activities. Overall, such peripheral, subordinate or ancillary activities of the BBC should bear a proper sense of proportion to the BBC’s main activities, and each of them should be appropriate to be carried on by the BBC alongside its main activities.

 

However I'd think that hairsplitting point is just a red herring.

 

Top Gear is part of the programming content of BBC Two.

 

S.11 of the Framework Agreement states that the BBC undertakes to provide various services, including BBC Two as UK Public Services.

 

S.100. Meaning of “the UK Public Services”

In this Agreement, “the UK Public Services” means all the services provided by the BBC for the purpose of promoting its Public Purposes,

 

Please don't expect me to set out every nitty picky detail in advance to back up what I am saying. There may well be things I may not have read properly or have misunderstood, and I make no pretence otherwise. I'm more than happy if you want to query a point, and I'm happy to be corrected and set straight if sound reasons are shown, and discuss and debate sensibly. I've no gripe at all with your second sentence, but your blithe arrogant dismissal that this is 'clearly beyond me to read and understand' - as if you know it all and because it's abundantly clear to you that I'm just wrong does you no credit.

 

It's not about a point scoring grandstanding exercise to show who's smartest or knows most, and I'd much rather have healthy productive debate with you than not, and really value many of the comments you make especially those identifying possible holes and pitfalls - it's great you see where holes might be picked in something, but no need for the digging too.

 

Now perhaps take into account points raised above and earlier, and look back at what I said in relation to Top Gear - the BBC Two programme produced as part of the BBC's 'UK Public Services':

 

Can anyone explain how Top Gear serves the public interest and meets the objective of promotion of the BBC's Public Purposes?

 

If it doesn't, then as far as I can see the BBC shouldn't be doing it. If I'm wrong about that, then please show relevant provisions of the BBC's constitution which would make this part of its remit.

 

Maybe I haven't read and understood properly - if you want to point something out that I've missed or misread, or want to question or challenge without ad hominem attacks, no worries - that, like your second sentence, would be a valuable contribution.

 

[WTF]

Just because he made a joke about lorry drivers murdering prostitutes theres no need to hammer it home

 

It is a bit unfair though.

 

I'm sure they murder other sectors of the community as well. Illegal immigrants for instance

 

if only, perhaps customs could issue lorry drivers with a shotgun and get them to clean their lorrys out on arrival. the bodies could then be curried and shipped back to the famillies as 'feeding the family' is a popular excuse for coming here.