RedDave2 wrote:

But how does the process go - and can other programs be asked to be removed?

I dont know the full process inside out but know a bit from mates who have done editing and more importantly reversion editing.

Every broadcaster and production house will have a compliance team. It is their job to make sure whatever is broadcast or goes onto a streaming site fits both the legal standards and the predetermined standards set by the broadcaster themselves. These can naturally vary depending on the target audience so the compliance team will provide a list of stipulations for the editor to stick to when selecting footage, this is more impoertant naturally for stuff like reality TV or documentary than drama or comedy as the footage isn't predetermined.

So the editor does their job, it is checked by compliance, passes and goers to air.

Later they may wish to rerun a show or another broadcaster may pick up the show or it could be intended to air in another region or time. A reversion editor will be handed a new, up to date list of compliance and go through removing offending shots and filling the gaps. This happens all the time and it really isn't unusual to see stuff changed. Most BBC stuff has to have space made for adverts. 

With LB I suspect what has happened is they have been flagged by someone at the BBC to be reviewed (maybe off of Lucas' tweets). The compliance team will assess it and have probably decided that reversion would either be too stripped down or would remain problematic anyway. For LB I imagine that was quite a big decision as it was a flagship show, it likely involved quite high up people.

In terms of creators I don't think they would hold much official say upon if their creation was pulled or not. It depends on their ownership rights but at most they would likely only be able to prevent a re-commision once the current contract runs out. TV shows generally belong to the production company which may or may not be owned by the stars. Of course kicking up a stink on social media would almost certainly result in action.

On radio 4, Harry Enfield was being interrogated. His question was, after pretending to be 4 prime ministers and sending them up, what happens if Rishi becomes the next leader, is he off limits? Other guest said, why pretend to be anyone for comedy, just tell jokes.

Same old innit. Jim Sterling did a video on it this week, more about the pride flag but same principles.

Tempy wrote:

The BBC article about taking down Little Britain talks incredibly briefly about how it's harder to do something like an educational message with Little Britain versus something like Gone With the Wind, because the BBC would have to reckon with the fact that as well as it being made int he last 20 years, they were also broadcasting it very recently. Dunno what the answer is.

 

Sometimes there isn't an answer as such. Maybe little Britain clips can become part of a documentary programs. ITV surely wouldn't show 'mind your language' or 'love thy neighbour' anymore but the docu shows on C4 will use these as clips to show how bad TV was. Maybe that's the rightful place of little Britain.

nick_md wrote:

https://twitter.com/TheNickTesco/status/1271064495457210374 Fair point I thought, until there's more representation at the top things are unlikely to be different other than surface level.

That's tricky though. The 'Top' of most companies isn't usually that many people and it's not (despite what people think) an easy role. Britain being about 85% white complicates things a little bit further. If we take that percentage into qualified people for a top role, there won't be enough to go around. 

Not sure if its the same in Britain, but in Ireland you also have huge nepotism at the top. Not necessarily in a bad way but most business are family business's at heart. So usually the children have gone to college to study courses to improve the business. Hard to break into that, regardless of skin colour or ethnic origin.

nick_md wrote:

It's a worthwhile point for sure, but I guess it depends on how many roles we're considering 'top' - surely there's plenty of scope for improvement, even with the figures you're listing. We can definitely do better, is the bottom line, I think.

Has to be a long term plan really to work. Most people promoted to the top will start near the bottom (maybe not at that company, but as a career path) Unless you create specific posts which can lead to a ben carson type approach.

RedDave2 wrote:

davyK wrote:

Little Britain would be on the radar for a number of reasons....there was the vomiting WI member character and the "I'm a lady" characters.  The Thai bride and The slimming club would probably get a touch too. Trying to think of any content in that show that wouldn't be causing concern to the BBC lawyers actually...

Yeah, very true. I always thought it felt out of place even in its prime. I'll be honest, Mrs Browns Boys is the same - wildly popular but I find some of the jokes a little off. Maybe not offensive but a bit too below the belt for a show of its popularity. But I also find it unfunny so maybe I'm just overly critical.

Even Father Ted cant escape this - in the song for europe episode the three 'baddie' priests use blackface to dress up as Donna Summer and the Supremes or something. I've never thought it as a racist moment myself but maybe thats the problem.

I might not be able to devote myself full time to the ol' racism.

It's not the Greeks he's after, it's the Chinese.

You are white right?
I dont think it is for us whiteys to decide.

I argued the point over Papa Lazarou because I dont consider it blackface but that Father Ted episode is.

I'm not sure cleansing popular art of what is deemed racist is a significant part of any solution either. It smacks of window dressing and rather easy to do.

There are far more serious issues that are not anywhere near as visible or easy to address.

I see these sort of things as reinforcing influences more than inspirational ones. So while it needs addressing I don't see the value in doing it isolation. In fact it could be counter-productive in fanning the flames in certain quarters who can portray it in a certain way.

Kow wrote:

Is Manuel offensive now too? Or do we have to wait?

Nah we did his outrage when Ross and Brand left him a voicemail.
He has been filed under victim in the zeitgeist

Yeah seen clips of that on various talking head "remember the..." shows.

Shocking.

I definitely don't see the Father Ted thing as being offensive - it's absurd to see 3 priests dressed up as the Supremes (would it be offensive to women too?). But then what does my opinion matter in all this, I guess? Retro censoring seems a bit silly though, better to just put a warning at the beginning say some people may find some things here offensive. It does seem that people are going to go through everything looking for possible offences, where in fact maybe nobody is actually offended, and end up throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Fawlty Towers is offensive to lots of people, I'd suppose.

Cancelling Fawlty Towers is the point where a lot of sympathetic people are going to think this is getting ridiculous now and be less sympathetic for the important thing they’re being asked to agree to next.

Kow wrote:

You should all check out Spike Milligan's show from the 60s, Curry and Chips. It's on YouTube. It was deemed too offensive even for British tv back then. Spike wears blackface all the way through it, and it's absolutely full of racial slurs and stereotypes. It's not particularly funny either but hey ho, different times.

The Q series had sketches that included Pakistani Daleks and the Irish Noughts & Crosses Championships. I found the latter pretty funny and still do.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fd-oFPJl_v0