As a child, I can remember watching the “Basil Brush” show on the BBC. Basil Brush was a roguish fox puppet whose punch-line was “Boom Boom” when he cracked a one-liner. He disappeared for a number of years from our UK TV screens but has made a welcome return in recent times. But now he’s in trouble – with accusations of anti-gipsy racism thrown his way.
The craven BBC have backed away from supporting their fox. Bosses admitted that an episode which caused offence was “inappropriate” and have told police it will not be shown again. Officers have now decided no further action will be taken. The bizarre complaint was made by a gipsy living on a travellers’ site in Northamptonshire. He alleged a scene showing a gipsy woman trying to sell the puppet fox wooden pegs and heather was offensive and insulting. (To foxes?) The gipsy made an official complaint to Northamptonshire Police, which referred the matter to its Hate Crimes Unit. Last week, after speaking to police officers, the BBC reviewed the tapes and offered not to show the episode again.
Isn’t this so PATHETIC? Why are the Police wasting any resource pursuing this stupid allegation? Why is the BBC behaving so cowardly? This may seem a small event of little significance but in fact it is the failure of the BBC, and also the Police, to categorically dismiss the complaint concerned, that aids the daily advance of the toxic politically correct agenda which is in turn paralysing our free speech. How long before the BBC bans Cher’s “Gypsies, tramps and thieves”? I mean just think of all the offence THAT one gives to minority groups!
Don’t see your point. Were any white working class people actually offended by this series or not?
Yes we were ,extremely offended,all of my family and most of my friends.
However we are all too well aware that complaining to the bbc is synonymous with pissing in the wind.
Cystander:
Glad to see that it’s all left you open-minded.
And that we agree that gypsies have no reason to mistrust officialdom. None at all.
.
“And that we agree that gypsies have no reason to mistrust officialdom. None at all.”
Pathetic response by you Hillhunt,even by your miserably low standards.
Arthur Dent | 24.03.08 – 6:50 pm
I chose not to watch Jerry Springer the Opera, so I have only a limited idea what all the fuss was about.
Something puzzles me though – hadn’t JSTO been playing for about 2 years at the National Theatre, the Edinburgh Festival, the Cambridge Theatre and the Battersea Arts Centre without anyone making any kind of fuss…. at least none that crossed my radar?
Why then the outrage when the BBC screened it? Couldn’t have been largely synthetic – maybe even whipped up by some tabloid with its own agenda?
The idea that it was screened by a BBC that’s insouciant about offence being caused to Christians doesn’t ring true.
JSTO was eventually passed for TX by the DG himself – shortly after he’s scrapped Popetown…. precisely on the grounds that it would cause needless offence to Roman Catholics.
My hunch (and it’s only a hunch) is that it got the go ahead because of its National Theatre provenance – i.e. like Lady Chatterly’s Lover, it was deemed to have ‘artistic merit’.
That’s a subjective thing, of course, but when some kind of validation is required, surely the NT is one of the institutions to which the BBC should look?
Or. to put it another way, it’s hard for the BBC to say ‘we’re not screening this filth – it has no conceivable merit’ just after a long and successful run at the nation’s premier theatrical venue.
“hadn’t JSTO been playing for about 2 years at the National Theatre, the Edinburgh Festival, the Cambridge Theatre and the Battersea Arts Centre without anyone making any kind of fuss…. at least none that crossed my radar?”
Because most of us don’t go to these places,they do,however,get the BBC for their highly priced license tax.
Now I understand why you don’t understand.
Pathetic response by you Hillhunt,even by your miserably low standards.
Peter | 25.03.08 – 12:49 am |
He has no answer, but then again in his eyes we were at fault. We should have been arresting the pensioners for thinking that they were being intimidated by those really nice gypsies.
One thing for sure, people who live close tho these parasites understand only to well how unpleasant life can be.
Because most of us don’t go to these places
What do you mean, you don’t go to the Battersea Arts Centre ? I thought simply everyone went there. Only last week I was backstage talking to dear old Larry ” My boy ” he said…..
“So the answer to my earlier point is that you’ve never had dealings with gypsys, professional or otherwise.”
What the fuck has that got to do with the BBC?
“I can assure you that I as a Christian do take personally any blasphemous representations of my Saviour and was outraged at the BBCs broadcast of Jerry Springer the Opera and its subsequent mealy mouthed attempts to justify it.”
I never said it wasn’t offensive. But it’s not a direct insult likely to ‘incite hatred’ like this Basil Brush incident.
“The fundamental argument is that the BBC offers only sterotypes of the white working class, in almost all cases showing them as feckless, brutal, criminal(or close to it) and immoral.”
That’s telly for you I’m afraid. But as with Jerry Springer, I can’t think of anything that would incite racial or religious hatred in the BBC’s white-people programming.
Cystander:
One thing for sure, people who live close tho these parasites understand only to well how unpleasant life can be.
Canada gave us Oscar Peterson, Joni Mitchell, Neil Young, Leonard Cohen , KD Lang and most of the Band, John Candy, Mike Myers, Dan Aykroyd, Keanu Reeves, Donald Sutherland and his lad and even dear old Wiliam Shatner.
And we sent them you.
.
Whilst I personally find that lazy stereotyping is the basis for all the best humour I don’t think kid’s TV is the best place for it.
I think the legal issue with JSTO was that that hardcore Christian group whose name I can’t remember tried to bring a prosecution under blasphemy laws rather than religious hate laws. A schoolboy error.
But it’s not a direct insult likely to ‘incite hatred’ like this Basil Brush incident.
Alex, by describing Jesus as a “dead man” you have shown an inability to assess what is or isn’t an insult.
….I can’t think of anything that would incite racial or religious hatred in the BBC’s white-people programming.
How about scorn and contempt from other racial groups toward whites – which naturally provide fertile ground for hatred. The BBC would not dream of depicting Muslims or blacks in this fashion. To claim otherwise is just to argue for the sake of arguing.
If I were living in the UK, the very last thing I would do is pay a “licence fee” to this subversive little propaganda outfit that calls itself the British Broadcasting Corporation.
“….I can’t think of anything that would incite racial or religious hatred in the BBC’s white-people programming.”
The intention of downplaying the role of Islam in terrorism seems to be to prevent stupid unIslamic people from hating all Muslims due to their inability to differentiate.
So is it not the case that portraying white working class people as hardcore racists (even in the context of examining whether they might have half a point) risks provoking non whites into getting their retaliation in first? Blacks and Asians watch telly and are subject to the lure of stereotyping as well you know??
Bryan:
If you can’t tell the difference between “incitement to racial/religious hatred” and “blasphemous and unbelievably offensive” I would advise you to go to the police over the Jerry Springer opera or the BBC’s ‘White’ season and see how much they co-operate. They probably won’t. You’ll complain that they’re shackled by political correctness no doubt. And then you’ll make a futile attempt to argue that because the police are shackled by political correctness, that the BBC is somehow biased to the left because it obeys the law of the land and co-operates with the police.
Alex, I don’t think the Israeli police would be too interested in a complaint about Jerry Springer and the BBC. It’s a bit out of their jurisdiction.
The British police have been successfully cocooned in lefty PC (no pun intended) by the Labour “government”. So I really don’t see how it is somehow a valid argument that the BBC is not firmly ensconsed on the left simply because it is harmony with the police on many issues.
I never said it wasn’t offensive. But it’s not a direct insult likely to ‘incite hatred’ like this Basil Brush incident.
It doesn’t help the debate if you keep moving the goalposts.
What I said was that the BBC constantly stereotyped and insulted various groups of people (that it despises) and deliberately refrained from such behaviour for other groups (that it supports). This is an example of bias. I did not say that such insults led to the ‘incitement of hatred’, I said the groups were insulted, and I repeat the BBC does this regularly with respect to my religious faith, and as such undermines and belittles those values that I hold dear.
Err.. ensconced
I’m not sure there is much point in debating with Alex. He has been thoroughly and successfully miseducated in the technique of prolonging an argument to the point of meaninglessness.
If I were Alex, I would sue my left wing philosophy tutors for damage to intellectual property – i.e. to my brain.
hadn’t JSTO been playing for about 2 years at the National Theatre, the Edinburgh Festival, the Cambridge Theatre and the Battersea Arts Centre without anyone making any kind of fuss…. at least none that crossed my radar
Perhaps your Radar wasn’t sensitive enough, JSTO was controversial from the moment that it opened and when it moved to the Cambridge Theatre and began to attract bigger audiences there were regular demonstrations outside the theatre and attempt by evangelical Christian groups to have the play closed. Thus it wasn’t in the least surprising that the BBC got into immediate hotwater when it proposed to broadcast the piece nationwide.
In general Christians are very tolerant of others making fun, or worse, of their faith, it is after all part of the Chritian faith to love your enemies and turn the other cheek. However, the obsequience shown by the BBC, and to be fair the rest of the establishment, to the sensibilities of other faiths is breeding militancy within the Christian Church. This is appearing in a number of ways, most recently in the opposition to the human fertilisation and Embryo Bill.
“What I said was that the BBC constantly stereotyped and insulted various groups of people (that it despises) and deliberately refrained from such behaviour for other groups (that it supports).”
In comparison to the Basil Brush incident, the fact that it could be construed as a criminal act is fairly central to the BBC’s response. I don’t doubt that the BBC stereotypes of the white working class, but is this a stereotype of white people or of working class people?
Other things, for example that the BBC
supposedly refrains from offending Muslims, would have to be examined case by case. A general feeling that the BBC is doing that sort of thing is not enough.
“So I really don’t see how it is somehow a valid argument that the BBC is not firmly ensconced on the left simply because it is harmony with the police on many issues.”
So your accusation against the BBC is that it obeys the law and co-operates with the police? Almost criminal, this kind of bias, isn’t it?
the fact that it could be construed as a criminal act is fairly central to the BBC’s response
The broadcast of JSTO could also have been construed as a criminal act at the same point (In the case of JSTO it went to court and the court said it wasn’t) In the case of the Basil Brush inciden the BBC rolled over and purred. The difference in approach would appear to be obvious. If in doubt use Occams Razor.
Other things, for example that the BBC supposedly refrains from offending Muslims, would have to be examined case by case. A general feeling that the BBC is doing that sort of thing is not enough.
Indeed, and this site for the last few months has been littered with such individual cases, with nary a one coming down on the other side of the argument.
“The difference in approach would appear to be obvious. If in doubt use Occams Razor.”
The simplest explanation is probably right? I’d go with JSTO was incredibly successful and a colossal ratings grabber, which the BBC was probably quite keen to show, but they could easily do without one episode of Basil Brush.
What are the chances of the BBC putting up someone to say, that if the police have the manpower to scrutinise episodes of Basil Brush for hate crime content, then they consist of too many useless mouths and we should sack several thousands of them?
This whole scene has gone far beyond self parody!
“What are the chances of the BBC putting up someone to say, that if the police have the manpower to scrutinise episodes of Basil Brush for hate crime content, then they consist of too many useless mouths and we should sack several thousands of them?”
That’s not really the kind of impartiality we’re looking for. That would be fairly biased against the police, no?
It would depend who’s saying it. The BBC is able to report criticism without breaching the charter.
While I am sympathetic to the ‘PC gone mad tone’ of this post, this is clearly a case of an overly PC force leaning on the beeb rather bias.
If the police did not receive any complaints about Jerry Springer, that is not the Beeb’s problem. All it shows is that pikies rub against the law more than Christians and know how to twist it to their own means rather better. I suspect this complaint would get rather a different response from the Met but that is by the by.
I have said many times before the Beeb is as much a victim of PC as it is a cause of it.
“…dead man”
“In terms of a potential writ for libel, he’s dead.” Alex
Christians say he is alive.
Basic tenet of the religion.
You can’t even get that right.
And you can’t see it’s grossly offensive and that JSTO is too.
You do not have to accept a religion to at least knnwo its basics especially that of the majority of this nation.
What next buddhists don’t believe in nirvana, muslims don’t believe in paradise, where does your ignorance of religion end.
And of course the majority of complaints about JSTO were before it was shown, they were trying to STOP it being shown, complaining after the event (which many many STILL did) was too late to stop it being shown.
And its horrendous double standards, try the same about islam and see if the BBC will broadcast it, they won’t even publish a few cartoons.
“Christians say he is alive. Basic tenet of the religion.”
In terms of the British legal system, which would process libel claims, he’s dead.
Sarah Jane:
I know you’re slumming it down here. And for good reasons.
But since when was pikey any more dignified a way to label people than calling them nigger, yid or Paki?
.
“sutekh:
That someone complained should come as no suprise to anyone. Remember the trouble VIZ magazine got into some years back for running a strip called “The Theiving Gypsy Bastards”?
Iirc, back then the complaint came from the social studies dept. of some university.
sutekh | 24.03.08 – 8:23 am ”
Yes, and I chuckle to recall something like that which I couldn’t imagine the present much safer ‘Viz’ daring to go within a thousand miles of. A little story depicting Martin Luther King’s ‘I Have A Dream’ speech as originating in an actual dream or Rowan Williams as a blinged-up Christian advocate is more their (lame) style now.
Mind you, Terry Fuckwitt’s still good usually.
‘Yasser’s Glasses’ was a modern classic.
And of course the majority of complaints about JSTO were before it was shown, they were trying to STOP it being shown, complaining after the event (which many many STILL did) was too late to stop it being shown.
But just as with the demonstrations outside live performances, those complaining had generally not seen whether or not the production actually fitted the description being bandied about by the likes of Stephen Green, who has wasted so much money pursuing unwinnable court actions. Money that could have been much better spent on Christian acts of charity.
I’ve seen JS:TO several times, and it didn’t offend my faith at all. Quite the contrary — alongside parodying the Miltonesque view of heaven and hell, by placing characters from Biblical lore in situations matching a confrontational show, it encourages us to look at what we do to the poor souls who are put into those shows, and pilloried for the sake of public entertainment.
Scott/Alex
So a Jerry Springer The Opera exactly the same save it being changed to have the islamic prophet mohammed rather than the Lord Jesus Christ in would be shown by the BBC would it?
Are you being serious?
Again, typical B-BBC “The BBC would never do this with xyz” straw-man speculation.
Write one and see.
Speculation?
Like for example the BBC will receive a record number of complaints about a programme more than all their other complaints ever put together but they will ignore it and what’s more continue to put the boot in further.
No wait, that’s not speculation, it happened.
Alex: “Write one and see.”
You don’t really have to, do you? It declined to broadcast the Mohammed cartoons and instantly apologised when a presenter joked that Gillian Gibbon, who named a teddy Mohammed also had a dog by that name.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/12/08/do0805.xml
Of course, I’m sure you can distinguish these cases, so technically your argument stands until someone writes a West End hit depicting Muhammed in an unflattering light, the BBC says it will broadcast it, Muslims complain and the BBC backs down. Must mean you’re right.
For a start the Muhammad cartoons and JSTO would have been different types of output. Nobody in their right mind would consider the opera ‘news’ or the cartoons entertainment.
JSTO had two aspects which Christian Voice found offensive in a two-hour show:
“I don’t want to go into too much detail, but the Lord Jesus is portrayed in ‘Springer’ as an infantile sexual deviant. Satan tells Him ‘F— you’, and Mary his blessed mother castigates Him for abandoning her when He died on the cross. His wounds are mocked, He says He is ‘a little bit gay’ and finally Jerry Springer tells him: ‘Jesus, grow up for Chr—’s sake and put some f—ing clothes on.’ On top of all that, Almighty God is portrayed as an ineffectual inadequate who needs Jerry Springer’s shoulder to cry on, and Springer himself emerges as the true saviour of mankind.
The Muhammad cartoons, however, with the exception of the kid writing on the blackboard, were entirely intended to be offensive and served no other purpose. It was also entirely possible to convey the news story without showing the images. By contrast, it’s quite hard to show a hit musical without the hit musical.
“For a start the Muhammad cartoons and JSTO would have been different types of output. Nobody in their right mind would consider the opera ‘news’ or the cartoons entertainment.”
Thanks for clearing that up for me. I was wondering why Huw Edwards never burst into song.
“The Muhammad cartoons…were entirely intended to be offensive and served no other purpose.”
Nothing to do with highlighting free speech and the dangers of Islamic extremism then?
“By contrast, it’s quite hard to show a hit musical without the hit musical.”
Because they had to show it, didn’t they? There wasn’t the option of -er – simply not showing it.
“Nothing to do with highlighting free speech and the dangers of Islamic extremism then?”
Via the medium of being deliberately offensive. Offensiveness was somewhat central to the plan.
“Because they had to show it, didn’t they? There wasn’t the option of -er – simply not showing it.”
That wasn’t my point. You can have an informative news report on cartoons without cartoons and it still be an informative news report. You can’t have a hit musical without the musical and it still be a hit musical.
Sorry, when you said “served no other purpose” I thought you meant, er, served no other purpose.
Via the medium of being deliberately offensive. Offensiveness was somewhat central to the plan
Precisely. That was the whole purpose behind JSTO, it was meant to be as offensive as possible which made lots of people want to see it, one of the oldest tricks in the book. Just because you didn’t find it offensive or insulting does not mean that hundreds of thousands of Christians share your opinion.
Hugh is spot on the BBC didn’t publish the cartoons becasue it was concerned that it would offend Muslim sensibilities (which it cares about) but went ahead with JSTO (when it didn’t need to do so) despite the fact that it knew Christians would be offended (but it doesn’t care about them)
“That was the whole purpose behind JSTO, it was meant to be as offensive as possible which made lots of people want to see it, one of the oldest tricks in the book.”
You may have a point there. But it is not possible to show JSTO without causing offence in the same way you can report on the cartoons without causing offence. This is the essential difference.
No, the essential similarity is that in both cases the BBC could easily avoid causing offence. It chose to do so in only one.
It had to cover the Danish cartoons and therefore figured out a way of doing so without causing offence. It did not have to show JSTO and could just as easily have avoided causing offence by simply not doing so. But it did.
“But it is not possible to show JSTO without causing offence in the same way you can report on the cartoons without causing offence. This is the essential difference.
Alex | Homepage | 28.03.08 – 2:03 pm”
100% bs.
I assume you wrote this in a hurry and didn’t actually read it.
I also assume you are not a practicing Christian (or Muslim come to that).
If you concentrated on the defences you make that made sense and did not resort to the totally indefensible that even the BBC would blush from using you just might gain more credibility.
Which is the bit you disagreed with? Is it:
a) That the BBC can achieve its goal of a story on the Danish cartoons without showing the cartoons in question.
or
b) That it can’t achieve its goal of showing a very successful musical about Jerry Springer without showing the musical itself.
There are also certain details of the cartoons – for example the bomb for a turban – which could be construed as incitement to racial or religious hatred. This may also have been a motive. JSTO, by contrast, was prosecuted under blasphemy laws, which the BBC might (quite rightly) not have expected to be enforced by the court.
Sorry Hugh, didn’t see your post.
“It had to cover the Danish cartoons and therefore figured out a way of doing so without causing offence. It did not have to show JSTO and could just as easily have avoided causing offence by simply not doing so. But it did.”
By agreeing not to show the offensive Basil Brush, the BBC lost one short kids TV episode.
By not showing the cartoons, the BBC lost a slightly more informative report at a time when few of its competitors were showing them either.
By not showing JSTO, the BBC would have lost a two-hour programme guaranteed high ratings.
Do you see the difference now?
A public service broadcaster that feeds at the public trough should be concerned about high ratings?
You are making mountains out of molehills here, all to bolster your argument that the BBC is somehow justified in its unequal treatment of differnent religions in the specific cases under discussion.
Quite a while back the editor of, I think, the Independent was asked on the World Service why he chose not to publish the cartoons.
“Their quality was not good enough,” came the extraordinary reply.
“That’s a cop out,” the BBC shot back.
That was a refreshingly frank and honest statement from the BBC. And something we see so rarely, especially where Islam is concerned.
Now let’s see some of the same from you, Alex.
“A public service broadcaster that feeds at the public trough should be concerned about high ratings?”
Arguably no, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t.
Alex: “Do you see the difference now?”
Another example for you to distinguish:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/aug/19/terrorism.bbc
It’s wasn’t a musical? ?Never appeared on the West End? No chat show hosts involved? Ratings would have been poor?
“The drama staff were overruled because of concerns that the story would perpetuate stereotypes of young Muslims in Britain.”
It promoted offensive stereotypes. This isn’t quite the same as showing religious figures in an offensive light.
Well done. Knew you could do it. Clear distinction drawn in editorial guidelines: promoting offensive stereotypes thus offending religiously observant – not allowed. Showing central religious figures in offensive light, thus offending religiously observant – allowed. It’s all so clear, thanks.
So, just to reiterate from what I said earlier: technically your argument stands until someone writes a West End hit depicting Muhammed in an unflattering light, the BBC says it will broadcast it, Muslims complain and the BBC backs down. Must mean you’re right. I think I’ll pass on the hand shake.