I listened to Jay Hunt's diatribe on the Golliwog Affair and felt she was one of those bbc PC agenda management people that epitimizes the problem, and not the solution, to the bbc's and our woes.
Her sanctimonious refusal to believe the bleeding obvious shows a lot about how senior management is chosen at that bureaucratic institution that has lost touch with its public.
The woman Jay Hunt, the controller of BBC One, ( as if that job
wasn't a shameful enough way to spend your life) has degraded the BBC
into the mire even more than it was already! The gist of the Beeb's
stance is contained in this cringe making reply to someone who
complained about their stance. Read it and squirm and why not
complain about the letter too!
Carol Thatcher's remarks were not made in private but in a BBC Green
Room in front of a number of people including BBC staff and caused
great offence to those who heard them. [It was to three people.- the
sanctimonious presenter Chiles Jo Brand and ANOther]. Jo Brand said
she didn't complain]
The One Show had hoped that Carol would issue an unconditional
apology to those whom she had offended. [That would be WHO?] Unlike
other presenters who have found themselves at the centre of a news
story in the past, Carol declined to do so. [Why should she? I've
heard much worse continuaslly being used in jest - often on the BBC,
where I am continuously bt the people they asttack or outrage. The
filth on the otherwise good QI for a start] ]
As a result, her position on The One Show is no longer tenable and
there are no plans to work with her in the future on that show. This
is because her role as a roving reporter requires her to report on a
wide variety of issues and to meet a diverse range of people
throughout the country, many of whom are unlikely to agree that her
remarks were acceptable even as a joke. [If the Beeb hadn't given it
all this publicity nobody would have known the private remark. So if
anyone is at fault and should apologise it is the Hunt woman who is
responsible for spreading what she objects to. ]
This does not mean she is banned from the BBC as a whole but simply
she is no longer able to fulfil her current role on The One Show.
The BBC considers any language of a racist nature to be wholly
unacceptable. [It wasn't a racist remark in mpst people's view. The
Hunt woman has set hrerserrlf up as the judge and jury in tha`t
decision ]
Once again, thank you for taking the time to contact us [- - - 'as
usual we shall ignore the publics' views but we'll still take your
money"]
'Hunt - the racist Inquisitor" should be sacked at once and the BBC
apologise before it is broken up and the licence fee abolished
xxxxxxxxxxxx cs
=========================
TELEGRAPH 6.2.09
1. (Leader) BBC causes offence
The corporation has become the self-appointed arbiter of what is
appropriate behaviour.
Few people can have listened to Jay Hunt, the controller of BBC 1, on
Radio Four's Today programme yesterday with anything other than
incredulity and rising anger. Her condemnation of Carol Thatcher over
the great golliwog imbroglio was almost a parody of the
sanctimonious, smug, patronising and self-important attitudes that
have infected the corporation from top to bottom.
Viewed from Broadcasting House, the world is in a constant foment of
indignation at any perceived affront - unless, that is, the offence
is felt by people who object to gratuitous sex, violence, swearing,
boorish behaviour, insults to the Royal Family or to Christians, or
to the BBC's insidious Left-wing bias. They can all lump it.
Miss Hunt felt that a remark made in private by Miss Thatcher
warranted a public apology, even though it had not been broadcast and
only a handful of people had heard it. While Miss Thatcher did regret
any offence caused, Miss Hunt felt she had not sufficiently abased
herself before the nation. "We have given Carol ample opportunity to
give a fulsome (sic) apology and she has chosen not to do so."
What is so grotesque is that Miss Hunt evidently thinks she has
behaved in a perfectly reasonable way. Miss Thatcher had failed to
recant in a manner acceptable to the BBC, which is, apparently, the
self-appointed arbiter of what is appropriate behaviour. If the
Jonathan Ross affair confirmed how out of touch its executives have
become from most viewers, this affair has exposed a McCarthyite world
of denunciation and arbitrary punishment of those who do not hold an
approved opinion. No doubt Miss Hunt and her colleagues regarded her
interview as a triumphant exposition of the progressive creed. To
many of us it was downright sinister.
==============
Planet Beeb?
The BBC's reaction to Carol Thatcher's comment was hysterical, says
George Pitcher.
By George Pitcher
First, let's get something that may be counter-intuitive for most
readers out of the way. Carol Thatcher is not blameless in the
"golliwog" scandal. I've never met her, but I'm more than willing to
accept from those who know her that she is no kind of racist. But you
don't have to be a racist to say racist things.
There is a casual, lazy racism of which we can all be guilty; I'm
certain that, having also grown up with Robertson's jam, I could
easily make the golliwog mistake. And if I did so and caused offence,
I like to think I would apologise for it, as I understand Thatcher
has tried to do. But her offence is utterly eclipsed by the fatuous,
vindictive, officious and sanctimonious response to it from Planet
BBC. It is almost beyond belief that a media organisation supposedly
staffed by sentient adults could have moved so sententiously to break
this butterfly on its wheel.
Yesterday morning, much of the nation sat open-mouthed and frozen
over its breakfast, or struck dumb about our ablutions, as Jay Hunt,
the controller of BBC One, attempted to justify her organisation's
thought police in their Stasi-like pursuit of Thatcher. It is worth
trying to deconstruct what she had to say in this extraordinary
performance. Under very respectable cross-examination from Today
presenter Sarah Montague, Hunt claimed that Thatcher's remark was
"hugely offensive", that the remark was made "in a public space" and
that Thatcher had refused the BBC's demand to make a "fulsome and
unconditional apology", so she had to go.
Let's take those allegations in order: First, the "huge offence" that
Thatcher caused. Hunt said that Thatcher was in conversation
"specifically" with three people, One Show presenter Adrian Chiles,
comedian Jo Brand and an unnamed "senior charity worker". She then
rather extended the offended constituency by claiming that 12 people
were present, and that the "wider production team" were also offended
when Thatcher described "an international black tennis player as a
golliwog".
Chiles is a robust man and we can presume that he is capable of
looking after himself, not least as a presenter of Match of the Day
2, where we can also presume he's exposed to some fairly strong
language with the lads off-air. Jo Brand is one of those "edgy"
comedians beloved by the Beeb and knows all about making gags about
people's physical characteristics - fat people, that kind of thing.
The charity worker may have felt a little intimidated in the company
of these big celebrities, but both Chiles and Brand were more than
capable of saying something to the effect of, "Oi, Carol, that's well
out of order". Indeed, reports suggest that they did take Thatcher to
task at the time. But we are also led to believe by Hunt that they
and/or others in the room went on to complain of their "huge offence"
to a BBC executive producer the following day.
Second, the "public place" was a BBC green room, with 12 people in it
and where there is a convention that what is said remains there, a
version of the Chatham House rule with which all journalists are
familiar. By contrast, we know that the incontrovertibly offensive
Jonathan Ross harassed and insulted an elderly man and his grand-
daughter, publicly and on air. According to Hunt, that's okay because
Ross served his subsequent suspension and "apologised profusely".
Actually, Ross apologised briefly and glibly on air and has made
further jokes about the Andrew Sachs affair on his recent shows. But
then he's not Margaret Thatcher's son and is too expensive to fire,
his £6 million-a-year contract not having expired, as Carol
Thatcher's has.
Thirdly, Thatcher did proffer an apology by email for her remark and
said that she regretted it. But her crime was to continue to claim
that it was a joke and her apology was not "fulsome and
unconditional" enough to satisfy Hunt and the BBC's vocabulary Swat
team. In the world that the rest of us occupy, this should and would
have been a spat between colleagues.
Thatcher probably should have responded at the time with something
like, "Yes, I'm sorry, I shouldn't have said that", and one hopes
that would have been the end of the story. But, even as it is, there
are no grounds for any action more extreme than Chiles, Brand and the
others wandering off to the pub muttering, "I can't believe the silly
cow said that".
It's as if the BBC occupies a parallel dimension, in which "hugely
offensive" has acquired some very tight definitions, prescribed by
executives such as Hunt. Body parts, old people and Tories are
comedic subjects that are right on. But golliwogs are right out.
The sadness is that Hunt is not incorrect, just utterly inconsistent.
Hunt clearly believes that everything she describes about the
reaction to the incident is entirely normal: that a remark made off-
air in a private conversation should be the subject of the management
time of an executive producer and that Thatcher should be required to
make a public apology to the entire nation.
If that's intelligent life on Planet BBC then Carol Thatcher will be
well out of it. [As would all decent people.]
Posts
