Dear BACC: have you gone absolutely batshit?

The BBQ Pit
1

I humbly sumbit this here BBC article, from which I shall reproduce a few quotes below:

No shit, that’s the whole point of satire, you eedjits.

Mind you, this is where it gets complex: the actual show can be broadcast as planned, including the excerpt described above. It’s just that they can’t use it in a promo to lure viewers.

All together now: what the fuck?

Folks, I have nothing against George W Bush, aside from a few minor political issues he and I seem to disagree on, issues which I do not wish to debate in this thread. But as a public figure, an elected government official of arguably the most influencial democracy in the world, he is a valid target for the media.

Whether they choose to interview him, or mock him, THEY FUCKING CAN.

Hell, I cordially invite you to publically ridicule the elected leaders of my country. Lord knows I ridicule them on a daily basis.
[sub]Of course, my political party didn’t make the cut, and is in the opposition benches now, but that’s beside the point, honestly.[/sub]

So, any UK Dopers wanna weigh in on this? Is the BACC normally this anal, or is Tony the Lapdog behind all this?

Ooooh, I said “Tony the Lapdog”.

[Groundskeeper Willy] Shhhh! Y’wanna get sued?? [/Groundskeeper Willy]

Amazingly, mind-bogglingly STUPID.

2

The BACC, to be honest, is not a body that’s ever successfully engaged my attention before … the BCC, yes, and the ITC, but not the BACC.

I suppose, once in a while, these Watchdogs of Public Morality feel obliged to let out a low-pitched whining noise, to remind people they’re still alive. Getting anal over some paltry issue like this is the only thing they can do, so they do it. Perhaps it is politically motivated. Perhaps someone at the BACC is pining for an OBE.

Yes, it’s stupid, but I suspect it’s just an isolated piece of stupidity. Even Tony Blair (a man not noted for having his finger on the pulse of the nation) must realise he’s not going to convince anyone not to mock George Bush’s intelligence.

3

And I thought that OUR PM had his head so far up GWB’s butt it would take a proctologist to remove it.

That’s insane Coldie - of course political figures are valid targets. The same country whose tabloids have feeding frenzies about anything remotely connected to the royal family is afraid that Dubbya might be insulted by a cartoon? Guess the cartoonists better lay down their pens then - someone might eventually insult Saddam.

4

There’s quite a lot of sentiment expressed in the discussion forum of the BACC site. One of my favourites was:

Plenty more in that vein.

As an aside, I caught my first episode of it last night… fucking brilliant. Mind you, it’s an equal opportunity lampooner - the Royal Family ™ was taken apart. As were our illustrious leaders. And our sportsmen. You name it.

Must See TV.

5

[hijack] Oooh, so who did you vote for? PvdA, D66, Groen-Links, or could it be gasp the SP? Naaah, I don’t picture you as a Birkenstock wearing, , non-shaving, non-deoderant using SP or Groen-Links voter. Then again, they’re basically all on the opposition benches right now, especially the LPF.

Even more interesting: who’re you gonna vote for in January?[/hijack]

6

I have voted D66 as long as I have been able to, and I’m sticking with them, dammit. Party member, even.

7

Yeah, you would have really surprised me if you had said SP.

OK, this officially ends the hijack. There’s nothing to see here. Move along now folks…

8

It gets better. Apparently it is OK to show the clip in an advert so long as they get GWB’s permission first.

The program makers responded by asking if they also have to get Osama Bin Laden’s permission if they intend to lampoon him.

They were told: “Yes”.

pan

9

Oops, I just remembered something from an old thread. Is this why your picture was in all Dutch post offices?

OK, I mean it now. THAT ends the hijack. Sorry for any inconvenience.

10

The justification behind banning an ad but not the programme itself is apparently that “advertisements arrive in homes unbidden”. Fair enough - one chooses to watch a satirical programme, it is advertised in the TV guide as being such, but you don’t choose what ads get shown in any given commercial break. But, if you can’t have satire in the programme trailers, then surely that inhibits the ability of the viewer to make an informed choice about what to watch?

The wording of the clause in question says that “With limited exceptions, living people must not be portrayed, caricatured or referred to in advertisements without their permission”. I would be very interested to know exactly who the limited exceptions are, and why the fuck the President of the United States and other high-profile public figures are not considered to be exceptions?

It’s pretty obvious that featuring/lampooning the Pres or the PM on TV, whether on a satirical show, in a trailer for that show or in an ad for a commercial product, is entirely different from featuring/lampooning Joe Nobody. I’m surprised that someone in the BACC seems not to realise that, as it is a basic rule of thumb of publishing and broadcasting here in the UK.

11

This might not be that bad an idea. Maybe those TV people will have more luck finding him than all the Special Forces, etc… From what I have seen and heard, TV producers can be a real tough bunch.

12

My picture’s in the post offices? What, do I resemble Thom de Graaf or something? :slight_smile:

13

Hmm. If they asked George Bush for permission … would he give it?

It’s not such an easy question to answer. If he says yes, he comes across as a moron. If he says no, he comes across as pompous and humourless. Since many people already see him as a moron, perhaps saying yes is his least damaging option.

14

So did the royal family give permission for themselves to be lampooned?

Britain is the country which turned satirising public figures into an art-form. It’s a sad, sad day when this kind of ruling gets handed down. Is there any avenue of appeal against this ruling?

15

It does sound like dead people are fair game, which is somewhat ironic.

16

I think the decision is ludicrous, and just hope that the next trail satirises the BACC. That could be fun. . .

I heard on the radio this morning, though, that the fact that this advert has been banned is all over the Iraqi papers today, although the start of weapons inspections merits only 50 words, incidentally, the same 50 words in the three main papers, squeezed in right under the regular picture of Hussein.

[hijack] Does it have any impact on the situation that the Iraqis think the Brits think that Dubya is stupid? Solidity of the coalition or anything?[/hijack].

N.

17

If he said yes IMO he’d seem like a sensible person

18

Not being a fan of W, I was going to post earlier about whether he would even realise that people were making fun of him, let alone be insulted by it. I’m glad that other posters seem to have had similar thoughts.

19

To clarify for some of the above posters - my understanding is that the rules (in the UK at least) are VERY different for a TV advert than they are for a TV show. Use of someone’s image in an advert could suggest they endorsed the product.

This isn’t even just a promo (which would be covered by the ITC not by BACC) it’s an advert for a product related to a TV show. That’s why they’ve been able to step in like this.

I still think it’s a pretty pointless and crappy decision though.

20

VVD? Sounds like a type of underwear.

Amma Asante couldn’t find her arsehole with four hands and a search engine.

“Nurse Rachid” Jamari couldn’t be the color commentary at a cricket game, let alone the colorful craftsman of the circus.

Vera Dalm is so stupid, when she heard “Green Left” she turned around and went home.

Hans Bakker? I hardly even know her!

[sub]am I even coming close to hitting the mark with any of these insults? I don’t know any of them from Adamgruben[/sub]

Frank de Wolf is a kickass name though. He should be in porn.