BBC Television programmes  permalink

Bad language so early!

Messages: 1 - 50 of 102
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by JLP1971 (U15648621) on Friday, 15th March 2013

    Sat down with kids (who always support Comic Relief at school every year) to watch the 'early' Comic Relief show, expecting it would be vaguely relelvant to them seeing other children at school fund raising etc. Between 7.30 & 7.45 they heard all about sex trafficing, and heard the words pen~*, sha#, and ar*e! What happened to the watershed? The ruder stuff always used to be shown later on when it was safe to do so! How can you show children raising money for Comic Relief in a primary school one minute, then go to Rown Atkinson using inappropriate language? Have switched off and will return once kids are in bed. Not impressed!

    Reply to this message 1

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by U15636942 (U15636942) on Friday, 15th March 2013

    Sat down with kids (who always support Comic Relief at school every year) to watch the 'early' Comic Relief show, expecting it would be vaguely relelvant to them seeing other children at school fund raising etc. Between 7.30 & 7.45 they heard all about sex trafficing, and heard the words pen~*, sha#, and ar*e! What happened to the watershed? The ruder stuff always used to be shown later on when it was safe to do so! How can you show children raising money for Comic Relief in a primary school one minute, then go to Rown Atkinson using inappropriate language? Have switched off and will return once kids are in bed. Not impressed!  
    Not spent much time in a children's playground then, yourself?
    No memory of it?
    smiley - doh

    Reply to this message 2

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by JLP1971 (U15648621) on Friday, 15th March 2013

    Yes of course, that's where you learn it all!! It's just that Comic Relief gets nurseries/infants/junior schools to join in and raise money, so I thought it reasonable to watch a bit of it at 7.30 to show my 6 & 10 yr old what Comic Relief was all about! It's just that I'd prefer they didn't say those words at 7.30 - they don't usually! They can swear away now as I'm watching it in peace.

    Reply to this message 3

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by mittens (U1435246) on Friday, 15th March 2013

    Actually i think the first poster has a point. I was quite surprised.at some of the content and language so early. Im pretty sure i heard Peter Kay talking about dogs*** at about 8:30 or so.

    Reply to this message 4

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by LoopyLobes (U14384399) on Friday, 15th March 2013

    Yes, I agree. I don't expect to hear such language before 9pm either.

    Reply to this message 5

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by Red Horizon (U1719289) on Friday, 15th March 2013

    Sat down with kids (who always support Comic Relief at school every year) to watch the 'early' Comic Relief show, expecting it would be vaguely relelvant to them seeing other children at school fund raising etc. Between 7.30 & 7.45 they heard all about sex trafficing, and heard the words pen~*, sha#, and ar*e! What happened to the watershed? The ruder stuff always used to be shown later on when it was safe to do so! How can you show children raising money for Comic Relief in a primary school one minute, then go to Rown Atkinson using inappropriate language? Have switched off and will return once kids are in bed. Not impressed!  
    Not spent much time in a children's playground then, yourself?
    No memory of it?
    smiley - doh

     
    But, i think the point here Clandestine is: that we're all expecting the comic taste to be segmented as the evening goes on with the clean stuff being done first before the watershed for family entertainment - i regard this as a real professional let down if some comedians have not recognised this.

    Reply to this message 6

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by zencat (U14877400) on Friday, 15th March 2013

    The "heard it in the schoolyard" argument has no relevance. I heard stuff at school which I would have been embarrassed to hear in the company of my parents, and vice versa.

    Anyway, what's the point of the watershed if the BBC don't observe it?

    Reply to this message 7

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Guv-nor (U7476305) on Friday, 15th March 2013

    I suppose if you are really concerned about bad language you could always complain to the relevant regulatory body. I think in this case it is OffF***.

    Reply to this message 8

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Sam (U15466226) on Friday, 15th March 2013

    Sat down with kids (who always support Comic Relief at school every year) to watch the 'early' Comic Relief show, expecting it would be vaguely relelvant to them seeing other children at school fund raising etc. Between 7.30 & 7.45 they heard all about sex trafficing, and heard the words pen~*, sha#, and ar*e! What happened to the watershed? The ruder stuff always used to be shown later on when it was safe to do so! How can you show children raising money for Comic Relief in a primary school one minute, then go to Rown Atkinson using inappropriate language? Have switched off and will return once kids are in bed. Not impressed!   Visit my school sometime, you'll hear 12-year-olds using language like that.

    Reply to this message 9

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by Phrasmotic 4 August 2012 (U5509534) on Saturday, 16th March 2013

    I honestly can't think of an offensive word represented by pen~*. It can't be penis, which is a non-slang reference to a part of the (male) body. If anyone is offended by that word, it says a lot about them.

    The other words are at best mildly offensive slang. You might not want your kids to hear them, but as others have said, you hear far stronger in a primary school playground, as I used to, and I left primary school in 1968.

    I think the real issue is that this is embarrassing for parents to watch WITH the kids.

    Reply to this message 10

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by joeville (U1065277) on Saturday, 16th March 2013



    I'm more offended by the fact that it has been 25 years and the problems are still not sorted, it just shows that people/governments don't really care, they just like to give a few worthless tokens to satisfy their pathetic conscience and hope the problems go away on their own.


    25 Years of Comic relief is just proof that nobody cares.

    Reply to this message 11

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 11.

    Posted by devonia (U11270616) on Saturday, 16th March 2013

    This is exactly how I felt watching David Tennant appealing on behalf of malaria victims. He was in tears, so was I, it was pitiful to watch but I couldn't help thinking, 25 years and £600 million later we are seemingly no further forward.

    Reply to this message 12

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by bethb63 (U13675101) on Saturday, 16th March 2013

    I honestly can't think of an offensive word represented by pen~*. It can't be penis, which is a non-slang reference to a part of the (male) body. If anyone is offended by that word, it says a lot about them.

    The other words are at best mildly offensive slang. You might not want your kids to hear them, but as others have said, you hear far stronger in a primary school playground, as I used to, and I left primary school in 1968.

    I think the real issue is that this is embarrassing for parents to watch WITH the kids. 
    Thanks for this. Just what I wanted to say. smiley - ok

    Reply to this message 13

    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by Reservoir Hamster (U14288323) on Saturday, 16th March 2013

    I honestly can't think of an offensive word represented by pen~*. It can't be penis, which is a non-slang reference to a part of the (male) body. If anyone is offended by that word, it says a lot about them.

    The other words are at best mildly offensive slang. You might not want your kids to hear them, but as others have said, you hear far stronger in a primary school playground, as I used to, and I left primary school in 1968.

    I think the real issue is that this is embarrassing for parents to watch WITH the kids. 

    I can hear you sniffing with self-satisfaction during those first two rather glib paragraphs, Phrasmotic, but it's only in the third paragraph that you even begin to approach the real concerns of the original poster. If you pushed your own idea harder you might have come to realise that JLP (who has kids and lives in the real world) had a point and you're talking from some impersonal ivory tower of dictionary definitions and abstract concepts. Parents who express reservations about bad language on TV before the watershed are the very people with whom the BBC agreed that there should be a watershed. Perhaps you don't believe in watersheds.

    Reply to this message 14

    Report message14

  • Message 15

    , in reply to message 14.

    Posted by U15636942 (U15636942) on Saturday, 16th March 2013

    I don't believe in watersheds. Never have.

    Reply to this message 15

    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to message 15.

    Posted by tony ingram (U14880461) on Saturday, 16th March 2013

    I don't believe in watersheds. Never have.   I'll second that. It's up to parents to police what their kids are exposed to, not the rest of us or the TV companies.

    Reply to this message 16

    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to message 14.

    Posted by Phrasmotic 4 August 2012 (U5509534) on Saturday, 16th March 2013

    I honestly can't think of an offensive word represented by pen~*. It can't be penis, which is a non-slang reference to a part of the (male) body. If anyone is offended by that word, it says a lot about them.

    The other words are at best mildly offensive slang. You might not want your kids to hear them, but as others have said, you hear far stronger in a primary school playground, as I used to, and I left primary school in 1968.

    I think the real issue is that this is embarrassing for parents to watch WITH the kids. 

    I can hear you sniffing with self-satisfaction during those first two rather glib paragraphs, Phrasmotic, but it's only in the third paragraph that you even begin to approach the real concerns of the original poster. If you pushed your own idea harder you might have come to realise that JLP (who has kids and lives in the real world) had a point and you're talking from some impersonal ivory tower of dictionary definitions and abstract concepts. Parents who express reservations about bad language on TV before the watershed are the very people with whom the BBC agreed that there should be a watershed. Perhaps you don't believe in watersheds. 
    You're fixed in your own opinion and I respect your view and won't change that. Nothing to do with self-satisfaction, but the sniffiness is entirely about the word penis, which is not a swear word by any definition. I have also said on many occasions that the predominant view about offensive language is very different from when I was young - and I don't necessarily say I like this either. Swear words don't shock as they once did, with one very obvious exception. The words which most people are offended by relate to colour, creed, race, and sexuality.

    However, I draw the line at your assumptions about me. I'm a father of three children who I hope are growing up well adjusted individuals. If anything, they chide me for using inappropriate language.

    Reply to this message 17

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to message 17.

    Posted by alan997 (U1233723) on Saturday, 16th March 2013

    The words complained about aren't bad language; they're just the English language. Anyone who finds the like disturbing would do well to keep away from playgrounds - the language spoken there would surely reduce such sensitive souls to a quivering wreck.

    Reply to this message 18

    Report message18

  • Message 19

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Geordiegirl71 (U14404087) on Saturday, 16th March 2013

    Sat down with kids (who always support Comic Relief at school every year) to watch the 'early' Comic Relief show, expecting it would be vaguely relelvant to them seeing other children at school fund raising etc. Between 7.30 & 7.45 they heard all about sex trafficing, and heard the words pen~*, sha#, and ar*e! What happened to the watershed? The ruder stuff always used to be shown later on when it was safe to do so! How can you show children raising money for Comic Relief in a primary school one minute, then go to Rown Atkinson using inappropriate language? Have switched off and will return once kids are in bed. Not impressed!   We also sat and encouraged grandchildren to watch start of the evening. All primary school age who were engaged in the aims of the day. No school uniform day raised money for comic relief. As the programme has been encouraging active participation from children, please make at least the first hour suitable viewing for them! Poor choice of sketches for children, Childbirth, foul language by Rowan Atkinson not suitable for younger viewers. Also need to tone down some of the filming done to promote giving, a little too graphic for younger viewers. Otherwise well done with fund raising!

    Reply to this message 19

    Report message19

  • Message 20

    , in reply to message 16.

    Posted by Martyn (U14949330) on Saturday, 16th March 2013

    I don't believe in watersheds. Never have.   I'll second that. It's up to parents to police what their kids are exposed to, not the rest of us or the TV companies.   Yes, parents should take more responsibility as to what their children are exposed to, but it's equally the moral responsibility of television companies to ensure that they do not broadcast material that is not suitable for children at a time when they could be watching.

    Reply to this message 20

    Report message20

  • Message 21

    , in reply to message 19.

    Posted by tony ingram (U14880461) on Saturday, 16th March 2013

    Sat down with kids (who always support Comic Relief at school every year) to watch the 'early' Comic Relief show, expecting it would be vaguely relelvant to them seeing other children at school fund raising etc. Between 7.30 & 7.45 they heard all about sex trafficing, and heard the words pen~*, sha#, and ar*e! What happened to the watershed? The ruder stuff always used to be shown later on when it was safe to do so! How can you show children raising money for Comic Relief in a primary school one minute, then go to Rown Atkinson using inappropriate language? Have switched off and will return once kids are in bed. Not impressed!   We also sat and encouraged grandchildren to watch start of the evening. All primary school age who were engaged in the aims of the day. No school uniform day raised money for comic relief. As the programme has been encouraging active participation from children, please make at least the first hour suitable viewing for them! Poor choice of sketches for children, Childbirth, foul language by Rowan Atkinson not suitable for younger viewers. Also need to tone down some of the filming done to promote giving, a little too graphic for younger viewers. Otherwise well done with fund raising!  Oh, great. So now, not only does all our prime time TV have to be censored to make it child friendly in order to appease a few prudish parents, but a charity appeal shouldn't actually be drawing attention to the appaling conditions it's supposed to be raising money to combat in case it upsets the little darlings. I give up.

    Reply to this message 21

    Report message21

  • Message 22

    , in reply to message 20.

    Posted by tony ingram (U14880461) on Saturday, 16th March 2013

    I don't believe in watersheds. Never have.   I'll second that. It's up to parents to police what their kids are exposed to, not the rest of us or the TV companies.   Yes, parents should take more responsibility as to what their children are exposed to, but it's equally the moral responsibility of television companies to ensure that they do not broadcast material that is not suitable for children at a time when they could be watching.  They COULD be watching at ANY time. Should we be censored around the clock? Parents need to realize that the whole world does not revolve around their kids.

    Reply to this message 22

    Report message22

  • Message 23

    , in reply to message 22.

    Posted by Bonny (U14396592) on Saturday, 16th March 2013

    I think it should be pointed out that many children take a lot of time, care, and delight in participating in this.

    Therefore it is not acceptable to hear unacceptable terminology.

    I am no prude, but the ridiculous innuendo was vulgar, unecessary, and very unfunny. The point is: Had it been REALLY funny, I don't think any complaints would be stated.

    .......But it wasn't. Not at all.

    Reply to this message 23

    Report message23

  • Message 24

    , in reply to message 23.

    Posted by magicblackfrog (U13703642) on Saturday, 16th March 2013

    Not only is it embarrassing that many modern comics use bad language and foul comment as humour it is also embarrassing that so many appear to find the drivel funny, no wit, no clever use of the language just rubbish presented as humour.
    The biggest embarrassment by far is just how useless this whole charade has been in making any significant change to the situation in Africa, how many years have we been sending grain,money, shelters, pumps, nets etc etc and no nearer a solution.
    Until the politicians in Africa take responsibility for their people the situation will not change and good meaning people will still be doing these things for the next 25 years with little change, it is very sad to guess at how much cash has been raised during this time and just where it has gotten these poor folk.
    Sure some slebs trot out and show the odd school or whatever but totally insignificant change on such a large continent.
    If they fronted up to the likes of Mugabee it might impress me a whole lot more.

    Reply to this message 24

    Report message24

  • Message 25

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by QE (U15612083) on Saturday, 16th March 2013

    Not spent much time in a children's playground then, yourself? No memory of it?  I remember it well.

    And I find it pathetic that, instead of taking the trouble to think of something clever and subtle, an ex-comedian, trying to revive a flagging career on the back of a charity event, resorts to the use of words that used to make us snigger when we first heard them in primary school in the hope the audience, like yourself, is immature enough to still find them funny.

    Reply to this message 25

    Report message25

  • Message 26

    , in reply to message 22.

    Posted by Martyn (U14949330) on Sunday, 17th March 2013

    I don't believe in watersheds. Never have.   I'll second that. It's up to parents to police what their kids are exposed to, not the rest of us or the TV companies.   Yes, parents should take more responsibility as to what their children are exposed to, but it's equally the moral responsibility of television companies to ensure that they do not broadcast material that is not suitable for children at a time when they could be watching.  They COULD be watching at ANY time. Should we be censored around the clock? Parents need to realize that the whole world does not revolve around their kids.  The sort of response I'd expect from someone who doesn't have children, so has no idea about what they're actually talking about.

    Reply to this message 26

    Report message26

  • Message 27

    , in reply to message 22.

    Posted by Red Horizon (U1719289) on Sunday, 17th March 2013

    I don't believe in watersheds. Never have.   I'll second that. It's up to parents to police what their kids are exposed to, not the rest of us or the TV companies.   Yes, parents should take more responsibility as to what their children are exposed to, but it's equally the moral responsibility of television companies to ensure that they do not broadcast material that is not suitable for children at a time when they could be watching.  They COULD be watching at ANY time. Should we be censored around the clock? Parents need to realize that the whole world does not revolve around their kids.  No, they could not be watching 'ANYtime', because, i would imagine these self-same Parents would try to restrict what their kids were watching - in this case, Comic-Relief BEFORE the watershed where they thought all the comedy was going to be good, clean fun!

    Reply to this message 27

    Report message27

  • Message 28

    , in reply to message 26.

    Posted by tony ingram (U14880461) on Sunday, 17th March 2013

    I don't believe in watersheds. Never have.   I'll second that. It's up to parents to police what their kids are exposed to, not the rest of us or the TV companies.   Yes, parents should take more responsibility as to what their children are exposed to, but it's equally the moral responsibility of television companies to ensure that they do not broadcast material that is not suitable for children at a time when they could be watching.  They COULD be watching at ANY time. Should we be censored around the clock? Parents need to realize that the whole world does not revolve around their kids.  The sort of response I'd expect from someone who doesn't have children, so has no idea about what they're actually talking about.  An awful lot of people don't have children. Many of them TV licence fee payers. Why should we all have the programmes we watch neutered for the sake of other people's kids, or more accurately, for the sake of the parents? Why do so many parents assume that because their lives revolve around their offspring, everyone else should consider them a priority too?

    Reply to this message 28

    Report message28

  • Message 29

    , in reply to message 28.

    Posted by David (U2017805) on Sunday, 17th March 2013

    The point is, the BBC have a policy not to broadcast material that is deemed as offensive to the majority of people before 9.00 p.m. The sketch to which is being debated was offensive to the majority of people. You probably wont agree with this Mr Ingram, but until the BBC change their policy, I can only see that they were wrong in allowing this sketch to be broadcast at that time.

    Reply to this message 29

    Report message29

  • Message 30

    , in reply to message 29.

    Posted by Horned Viper (U4404689) on Sunday, 17th March 2013

    The sketch to which is being debated was offensive to the majority of people. 

    Interesting. How did you manage to find that out????

    Reply to this message 30

    Report message30

  • Message 31

    , in reply to message 30.

    Posted by Bananas are the best (U15650112) on Sunday, 17th March 2013

    The Daily Mail said it.

    www.dailymail.co.uk/...

    Interesting. How did you manage to find that out???? 

    Reply to this message 31

    Report message31

  • Message 32

    , in reply to message 31.

    Posted by Guv-nor (U7476305) on Sunday, 17th March 2013

    The Daily Mail said it.

    www.dailymail.co.uk/...

    Interesting. How did you manage to find that out????   

    Unfortunately quoting The Daily Mail is a circular reference. because The Daily Mail has a track record of watching this board in order to find (some have suggested plant) complaints about BBC programmes to use as a basis for a story.

    Reply to this message 32

    Report message32

  • Message 33

    , in reply to message 29.

    Posted by tony ingram (U14880461) on Sunday, 17th March 2013

    The point is, the BBC have a policy not to broadcast material that is deemed as offensive to the majority of people before 9.00 p.m. The sketch to which is being debated was offensive to the majority of people. You probably wont agree with this Mr Ingram, but until the BBC change their policy, I can only see that they were wrong in allowing this sketch to be broadcast at that time.  How do you know it was "offensive to the majority of people"? The comparative handful of people who are complaining about it do not represent "the majority of people". If they did, several million people would be complaining. The sketch appears to have offended only a vocal minority, not "the majority", so by your own logic, the BBC did nothing wrong in broadcasting it.

    Reply to this message 33

    Report message33

  • Message 34

    , in reply to message 31.

    Posted by Horned Viper (U4404689) on Sunday, 17th March 2013

    No it doesn't. It says 'Many parents were left fuming.' There's nothing to suggest 'the majority of people' found it offensive. In any case, this is The Daily Mail we're talking about.......

    Reply to this message 34

    Report message34

  • Message 35

    , in reply to message 33.

    Posted by David (U2017805) on Sunday, 17th March 2013

    Think its more than a handful who are complaining. Read through the posts and there is a clear majority who thought it was in bad taste, at the time broadcast.
    Certainly dont see requests for more bad language before 9.00 p.m.

    Reply to this message 35

    Report message35

  • Message 36

    , in reply to message 32.

    Posted by Bonny (U14396592) on Sunday, 17th March 2013

    The Daily Mail said it.

    www.dailymail.co.uk/...

    Interesting. How did you manage to find that out????   

    Unfortunately quoting The Daily Mail is a circular reference. because The Daily Mail has a track record of watching this board in order to find (some have suggested plant) complaints about BBC programmes to use as a basis for a story.  

    May I ask how you know that please? I really dislike unfounded statements backed by nothing.

    Please state within your remit of truth from whom you gained this information.....and as 'some have suggested plant', which one could this be I wonder.......the intrusive plantain, or the ever clinging vine.

    Reply to this message 36

    Report message36

  • Message 37

    , in reply to message 35.

    Posted by U15636942 (U15636942) on Sunday, 17th March 2013

    Think its more than a handful who are complaining. Read through the posts and there is a clear majority who thought it was in bad taste, at the time broadcast.
    Certainly dont see requests for more bad language before 9.00 p.m. 

    £75 million

    I like bad taste and strong language, especially when sums like that can be raised. Let's have more of it, all day long!

    £75 million, and counting!

    Reply to this message 37

    Report message37

  • Message 38

    , in reply to message 35.

    Posted by alan997 (U1233723) on Sunday, 17th March 2013

    Think its more than a handful who are complaining. Read through the posts and there is a clear majority who thought it was in bad taste, at the time broadcast.
    Certainly dont see requests for more bad language before 9.00 p.m. 

    Um, "Read through the posts (on a thread entitled 'Bad language so early!') on a BBC PoV Board largely inhabited by the kind of people who see nothing odd in quoting The Daily Mail as a source (and not in an ironic, knowing sort of way, but for real) and there is a clear majority who thought it was in bad taste, at the time broadcast."

    FTFY

    Reply to this message 38

    Report message38

  • Message 39

    , in reply to message 36.

    Posted by U15636942 (U15636942) on Sunday, 17th March 2013

    The Daily Mail said it.

    www.dailymail.co.uk/...

    Interesting. How did you manage to find that out????   

    Unfortunately quoting The Daily Mail is a circular reference. because The Daily Mail has a track record of watching this board in order to find (some have suggested plant) complaints about BBC programmes to use as a basis for a story.  

    May I ask how you know that please? I really dislike unfounded statements backed by nothing.

    Please state within your remit of truth from whom you gained this information.....and as 'some have suggested plant', which one could this be I wonder.......the intrusive plantain, or the ever clinging vine. 
    If you type into an internet search engine, Google for instance, the words 'daily mail bbc messageboards' you will see page after page of hits in abundant support of this 'track record' Bonny. The DM quoting from these boards at length in support of some 'outrage' or other. Mostly, it's just amusing.

    It's neither a secret nor especially controversial. Lazy journalism, if it merits being called 'journalism' at all, is about all it adds up to.

    Reply to this message 39

    Report message39

  • Message 40

    , in reply to message 36.

    Posted by Bananas are the best (U15650112) on Sunday, 17th March 2013

    Because they have been known to quote from, and refer to things that have been posted on the Points of View Messageboard, and use it to back up what they say. About Citizen Khan, "One viewer wrote on the BBC’s messageboard: ‘This is terrible stereotyping, ignorant and just dreadful.’"

    And, more recently:

    www.dailymail.co.uk/...

    Reply to this message 40

    Report message40

  • Message 41

    , in reply to message 36.

    Posted by Guv-nor (U7476305) on Sunday, 17th March 2013

    The Daily Mail said it.

    www.dailymail.co.uk/...

    Interesting. How did you manage to find that out????   

    Unfortunately quoting The Daily Mail is a circular reference. because The Daily Mail has a track record of watching this board in order to find (some have suggested plant) complaints about BBC programmes to use as a basis for a story.  

    May I ask how you know that please? I really dislike unfounded statements backed by nothing.

    Please state within your remit of truth from whom you gained this information.....and as 'some have suggested plant', which one could this be I wonder.......the intrusive plantain, or the ever clinging vine. 
    Here is another article from The Daily Mail that quotes complaints made on this messageboard.

    Reply to this message 41

    Report message41

  • Message 42

    , in reply to message 39.

    Posted by Bonny (U14396592) on Sunday, 17th March 2013

    The Daily Mail said it.

    www.dailymail.co.uk/...

    Interesting. How did you manage to find that out????   

    Unfortunately quoting The Daily Mail is a circular reference. because The Daily Mail has a track record of watching this board in order to find (some have suggested plant) complaints about BBC programmes to use as a basis for a story.  

    May I ask how you know that please? I really dislike unfounded statements backed by nothing.

    Please state within your remit of truth from whom you gained this information.....and as 'some have suggested plant', which one could this be I wonder.......the intrusive plantain, or the ever clinging vine. 
    If you type into an internet search engine, Google for instance, the words 'daily mail bbc messageboards' you will see page after page of hits in abundant support of this 'track record' Bonny. The DM quoting from these boards at length in support of some 'outrage' or other. Mostly, it's just amusing.

    It's neither a secret nor especially controversial. Lazy journalism, if it merits being called 'journalism' at all, is about all it adds up to.  

    Hey, thanks for that. How well are the informed informed.

    I could say as a former student of philosophy 'never always believe what you are told' - but who am I ?

    Do I exist even, and if so, can I prove it......smiley - laugh smiley - laugh

    e.g.......Who actually ARE the Daily Mail? Answers on a stamp will do.......if not, prove it.

    Reply to this message 42

    Report message42

  • Message 43

    , in reply to message 41.

    Posted by Guv-nor (U7476305) on Sunday, 17th March 2013

    The Daily Mail said it.

    www.dailymail.co.uk/...

    Interesting. How did you manage to find that out????   

    Unfortunately quoting The Daily Mail is a circular reference. because The Daily Mail has a track record of watching this board in order to find (some have suggested plant) complaints about BBC programmes to use as a basis for a story.  

    May I ask how you know that please? I really dislike unfounded statements backed by nothing.

    Please state within your remit of truth from whom you gained this information.....and as 'some have suggested plant', which one could this be I wonder.......the intrusive plantain, or the ever clinging vine. 
    Here is another article from The Daily Mail that quotes complaints made on this messageboard.
     

    The intended link. www.dailymail.co.uk/...

    Reply to this message 43

    Report message43

  • Message 44

    , in reply to message 42.

    Posted by Prophet Tenebrae (U5995226) on Sunday, 17th March 2013

    There is plenty of evidence that the Daily Mail quote mines these boards purely to substantiate/pad out stories against the BBC... strangely enough, located within the pages of the Daily Mail. It's a matter of public record.

    Reply to this message 44

    Report message44

  • Message 45

    , in reply to message 41.

    Posted by susiesar (U10941938) on Sunday, 17th March 2013

    The Mail has a TV correspondent called Paul Revoir who bases nearly all his stories on complaints on the message boards and never reports on complaints on ITV programmes, a lot of these complaints in the past have come from one post wonders who never appear again, this leads some to think it's just the Mail with it's daily negative BBC stories

    Reply to this message 45

    Report message45

  • Message 46

    , in reply to message 42.

    Posted by U15636942 (U15636942) on Sunday, 17th March 2013

    The Daily Mail said it.

    www.dailymail.co.uk/...

    Interesting. How did you manage to find that out????   

    Unfortunately quoting The Daily Mail is a circular reference. because The Daily Mail has a track record of watching this board in order to find (some have suggested plant) complaints about BBC programmes to use as a basis for a story.  

    May I ask how you know that please? I really dislike unfounded statements backed by nothing.

    Please state within your remit of truth from whom you gained this information.....and as 'some have suggested plant', which one could this be I wonder.......the intrusive plantain, or the ever clinging vine. 
    If you type into an internet search engine, Google for instance, the words 'daily mail bbc messageboards' you will see page after page of hits in abundant support of this 'track record' Bonny. The DM quoting from these boards at length in support of some 'outrage' or other. Mostly, it's just amusing.

    It's neither a secret nor especially controversial. Lazy journalism, if it merits being called 'journalism' at all, is about all it adds up to.  

    Hey, thanks for that. How well are the informed informed.

    I could say as a former student of philosophy 'never always believe what you are told' - but who am I ?

    Do I exist even, and if so, can I prove it......smiley - laugh smiley - laugh

    e.g.......Who actually ARE the Daily Mail? Answers on a stamp will do.......if not, prove it. 

    Lobster
    Rawl plug
    Dandelion
    Isobar

    All of which makes about as much sense.

    Reply to this message 46

    Report message46

  • Message 47

    , in reply to message 46.

    Posted by Bonny (U14396592) on Sunday, 17th March 2013

    The Daily Mail said it.

    www.dailymail.co.uk/...

    Interesting. How did you manage to find that out????   

    Unfortunately quoting The Daily Mail is a circular reference. because The Daily Mail has a track record of watching this board in order to find (some have suggested plant) complaints about BBC programmes to use as a basis for a story.  

    May I ask how you know that please? I really dislike unfounded statements backed by nothing.

    Please state within your remit of truth from whom you gained this information.....and as 'some have suggested plant', which one could this be I wonder.......the intrusive plantain, or the ever clinging vine. 
    If you type into an internet search engine, Google for instance, the words 'daily mail bbc messageboards' you will see page after page of hits in abundant support of this 'track record' Bonny. The DM quoting from these boards at length in support of some 'outrage' or other. Mostly, it's just amusing.

    It's neither a secret nor especially controversial. Lazy journalism, if it merits being called 'journalism' at all, is about all it adds up to.  

    Hey, thanks for that. How well are the informed informed.

    I could say as a former student of philosophy 'never always believe what you are told' - but who am I ?

    Do I exist even, and if so, can I prove it......smiley - laugh smiley - laugh

    e.g.......Who actually ARE the Daily Mail? Answers on a stamp will do.......if not, prove it. 

    Lobster
    Rawl plug
    Dandelion
    Isobar

    All of which makes about as much sense. 

    No real answers there then. But thanks for the effort. XX

    Reply to this message 47

    Report message47

  • Message 48

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Going_once (U14931925) on Sunday, 17th March 2013

    I'm with you OP given what you describe. Didn't watch it of course - not really suitable for adults let alone children. I always stayed away from the rough kids in the playground and, while I do not have children, unfortunately for me, I think they should be treated with respect at all times especially by our national broadcaster and that is what the watershed is for.

    NB I never had children, unfortuately for me, and I don't read the DM or any newspaper for that matter - also not suitable for adults these days but I do pay my council tax, a large chunk of which goes to education. However, if some of you are telling me that a**e and sha**ing and so forth are the daily and normal commerce of the average primary schoolchild, it's all been a bit of waste of time and I demand a refund.

    Reply to this message 48

    Report message48

  • Message 49

    , in reply to message 48.

    Posted by Sue_Aitch (U3336990) on Monday, 18th March 2013

    The Comic Relief highlights programme on Sunday 17th March edited some sketches and others made no appearance except in the montage.

    Reply to this message 49

    Report message49

  • Message 50

    , in reply to message 49.

    Posted by average40 (U14458923) on Monday, 18th March 2013

    The Comic Relief highlights programme on Sunday 17th March edited some sketches and others made no appearance except in the montage.  Highlight programme? How long was that? 2 mins?

    Reply to this message 50

    Report message50

Back to top

About this Board

The Points of View team invite you to discuss BBC Television programmes.

Add basic Smileys or extra Smileys to your posts.

Questions? Check the BBC FAQ for answers first!

Go to: BBC News Have your say to discuss topics in the news

Make a complaint? Go to the BBC complaints website.

BBC News: Off-topic for this board, so contact them directly with your feedback: Contact BBC News

or register to take part in a discussion.



Mon-Sat: 0900-2300
Sun: 1000-2300

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Recent Discussions

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.