Bovver for the BBC over the foul Catherine Tate Christmas Special

Qui tacet consentit

Let's just be thankful then that the character in question didn't spew forth any racist or 'homophobic' abuse that might also have been "fundamental to what makes her funny". Somehow though, I think the BBC would have resorted to a touch of politically-correct self-censorship had she done so!

Adrian

Get a grip. If you don't like it turn it off.

Michael St George

Would you really expect anything else from the BBC but standing by its decision? Its left-liberal bien-pensant commissioning editors, the outriders of the Corporation's self-imposed cultural marxism mission to mock and then ultimately overturn civilised values, will be delighted with the reaction. The case for scrapping the BBC grows stronger by the hour.

George Steiner

I did not watch the Christmas special as I don't watch other masterfull BBC expressions. But I submit to you that the BBC is a failed corporation. It will forever stand by whatever it does until the supine Brits will have had enough and withdraw the funds they ever so willingly pay to support it.

Verity

George Steiner is right. The BBC is a failed corporation and I think it would be unable to be self-sustaining. Apart from all the usual criticisms, I object to the way the managers, editors, commissioning editors, whatever, apparently regard the funds to run it, delivered by extortion, as somehow their right. As though the licence fee were an immutable force of nature. I'd like to see it dismantled. Not sold off. Not retained or preserved in any way. It's history. It's paternalist early 20th Century. It serves no purpose.

fnusnuank

Short news day?

Graeme Archer

"Qui tacet consentit" -- I'm not in favour of post-hoc censoring, and I doubt this will be a favourite column on the Speccie website -- but actually one of the most disgusting aspects of Tate is her relentless, nasty homophobia. Gay people laugh at her because Little Britain taught them they ought to. If her show was broadcast in the 70s we'd bracket it with John Inman's character in Are You Being etc, except that Inman's character had some redeeming features. Tate is a foul-mouthed ranter whose comedy is bullying, and I'd happily vote to have her expelled from the screen.

Tiberius

Adrian; it bothers me that merely for owning a TV I am legally obliged to contribute to the trough that feeds the cultural fascists that run the BBC, even if I choose to watch only other channels.

donald orr

What did anyone who has ever seen previous outings expect? The swearing was excessive & offensive but this should not mask the fact that the basic flaw in the programme was that it WASN'T funny. These characters, like those in Little Britain, have a limited shelf life and should be retired gracefully after a few sketches. No matter how outrageous(?) they become they simply deny any innovation or progression in the comedic art.

Maisie

My issue is her tired old portrayal of people from N Ireland. The balaclava joke may have worked 20 years ago. Now it is just old.

Anorak

and the BBC are thrusting her upon us as the new companion to Dr Who!Is the universe as we know it at an end?

Max Kaye

Time to scrap the TV Tax (aka 'licence')

David

Under what criteria is the BBC a failed corporation? Domestically, it dominates both ratings and critical awards, and internationally represents the only British television network able to produce programmes sufficiently attractive to sell abroad. The commercial channels produce nothing but dross. I have to pay for them through advertising costs passed on to the consumer, yet I never willingly watch the rubbish they produce.

Trumpeter Lanfried

David. You ask, under what criteria is the BBC a failed corporation? 1) By quality criteria. Its programmes are increasingly vulgar and coarse, aimed at the lowest common denominator. OK, they pull in the viewers and sell abroad. So does hard-core pornography. That doesn't mean our licence fee should fund it. 2) By management criteria. The BBC is hugely wasteful of resources, paying Jonathan Ross £18 million and sending a dozen reporters to cover every news story. 3) By public service criteria. Its news coverage is biased and its response to criticism is arrogant and patronising. The values of John Reith have been betrayed.

John Bacon

Catherine Tate / Little Britain / Fast show - A continual retelling of the same joke, week after week, after week. On Satellite, day after day after day!
My father used to say - "Money for old rope" - Why is it that the public still tunes in to this repetitive rubbish?
Catherine Tate has long since realised that her inventive skills are failing her, miserably, and has resorted to the 'old standby' - f****** this and that - to gain a reaction - and guess what? - we gave her that reaction.
Any guesses as to what the content of programmes on Christmas Day 2017 will be?

Bien Pensant

It was simply another attempt to be radical and to break boundaries; completely unfunny and peurile. I really am amazed at all those here that think the BBC licence fee/"tax" is money badly spent. Do you really want to live in a wall to wall Sky culture? One that costs 5 times as much, with lower cultural standanrds (or no cultural standards) and still riddled with commercial advertising??

Fergus Pickering

I watch Channel 4 news. I watch American crimes series. I watch films. I watch cricket on Sky. The only thing I watch on the BBC is Have I Got News For You? Presumably if BBC2 didn't do it then Channel 4 would. I don't consider the television I watch constitutes my culture becauseI also read books and newspapers and this kind of thing on the web. The BBC pisses me off with its self-regard and its soft left chattering classes attitudes. Closing it down would hardly affect me at all. Except for the radio, that is. Something has to be done about the radio. I must have Radio 4.

Noseydump

Catherine Tate belongs to the dull species 'comicus repetiticus'. These creatures think that something retains and perhaps gains hilarity by endless repetition.

Comicus repetiticus has developed a lazy alliance with homo moronicus, whose chief characteristic is to wallow in things cruel, coarse and familiar.

Ms Tate's popularity with homo moronicus relies on chronic unoriginality, lazy scripting, tediousness and offensiveness. What else did all these complaining Spectators expect?

Trumpeter Lanfried

Bien pensant. Why do you equate a belief that the licence fee is badly spent with a wish for wall to wall Sky culture? The logic escapes me. We just want the licence fee better spent.

David

Trumpeter, I note you failed to address my point about how it also dominates critical awards, which rather belays your point about quality. The BBC has recently produced programmes like The Blue Planet, Bleak House, State of Play, the Thick of it and Life on Mars. These are programmes of incredible quality; ITV hasn't produced anything even remotely comparable. You may wish to be left with a diet of You've been framed and Ultimate Force, but I certainly don't. "By management criteria. The BBC is hugely wasteful of resources, paying Jonathan Ross £18 million and sending a dozen reporters to cover every news story." Sure, the BBC could stand to work better on its spending, but that doesn't equate to it being failed. After all ITV wastes money on paying millions to Ross Kemp. 3) By public service criteria. Its news coverage is biased Yes, it is. But then so is commercial coverage. I contribute to Channel 4 news via the money I pay to cover advertising costs, despite it being the televisual equivalent of the Guardian. So again, it could be improved, but that doesn't mean the thing as a whole has failed. It's certainly no Fox News, thank G-d. (And it should be noted that bias is very often in the eye of the beholder-several lefty groups castigated the BBC for being pro=war.) "its response to criticism is arrogant and patronising." Name me a company that isn't. "The values of John Reith have been betrayed." Palpable stuff and nonsense. It is the only channel to reliably provide political coverage (whether you agree with it's slant or not) when other channels are cutting back, it provides the only home grown children's programming of any quality anymore, and produces the only world class documentaries in this country. John Reith would survey the current output of commercial TV and be more convinced than ever in the need for the licence fee. There are things about the BBC that could certainly be improved, but it's still lightyears ahead of it's rival in the UK. It has nowhere near failed.

Trumpeter Lanfried

David [10.34 AM] You asked 'under what criteria is the BBC a failed corporation'? I suggested three criteria. First, that its programmes are increasingly vulgar and coarse. Highlighting a handful of award-winning programmes does not invalidate my point. The drift is downwards. Secondly, I suggested the BBC is hugely wasteful of resources. You say they are not the only ones. I agree, but again, that does not invalidate my point. Thirdly, I suggested the BBC's news coverage is biased and its response to criticism is arrogant and patronising. You seem to agree with both points but again, you say that the BBC are not the only culprits. Maybe not, but they are the only culprits who threaten me with imprisonment if I don't pay the licence fee. So those are the criteria they have failed to meet. Finally, do you not think John Reith would regard twenty F***'s on Christmas night as a betrayal of his values?

Michael

This ghastly woman never was funny in the first place. I had always assumed that she was given such high profile by the BBC to provide gender 'balance' by having a prime time comedienne. I think the same of the equally unfunny Omid Djalili who seems to have been given prime time slots by the BBC for being from Iran and so filling up some sort of ethnic quota rather than actually being funny. The licence fee is a poll tax - nothing more. Scrap it.

Tanuki

If you don't like it don't watch it. I watched it, and found the supposed 'bad language' no more spectacular than you'd find in the average workplace/playground. OK, so it wasn't vicar's-tea-party pure - and I am thankful for that! At least the BBC is refelcting everyday life for once.

Nort

I suppose the phrase 'f*****g b*****d' being repeatedly uttered by a witless c**t can be regarded as extremely droll by the people who employ Jonathon Ross (another clot). To me 'Lead Balloon' has infinitely more wit and humour, (tho' the character Rick Spleen does make me wince) and doesn't rely on the same six gags week after week. Catherine Tate is a female Dick Emery with attitude.

David

"Highlighting a handful of award-winning programmes does "not invalidate my point" It certainly does. The definition of a successful television network is one which produces good quality shows. The BBC continues to do so. Ergo, it is not a failing body. It continues to create award winning programmes, as well as ratings grabbers. You miss my point about the others; unless you describe all television networks and companies as failing, they are merely points that can be improved. "Maybe not, but they are the only culprits who threaten me with imprisonment if I don't pay the licence fee" So? It works well; I'm not inclined to throw the baby put with the bathwater and end up with a choice of either You've Been Framed or having to pay much, much more for Sky. "Finally, do you not think John Reith would regard twenty F***'s on Christmas night as a betrayal of his values?" I think John Reith would frown on bad language any day. But we've loosened up a bit since his time and don't have to be molly coddled. Anglo-saxon vernacular doesn't really bother me, since I'm an adult and not a child. He'd certainly take one look at the Christmas Day schedules and thank G-d for the licence fee, if not actively call for the restitution of the BBC's monopoly.

David Lindsay

Elect the Trustees. In Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and each of the nine English regions (I know, I know - but what else is there?), licence-payers should each vote for up to one candidate, with the top two elected to serve a four-year term.

There would also be a Chairman, appointed by the Secretary of State with the approval of the House of Commons.

The Trustees would meet in public under any circumstance when a local council would do so. And the candidates would be sufficiently independent to qualify in principle for the Remuneration Panels of their local authorities.

This pattern should also be applied, with everyone having a vote, to Ofcom, to the Press Complaints Commission, and to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, just for a start.

Incidentally, I don't see what cause for complaint a lot of you have these days: since realising that Cameron was the Heir To Blair candidate of sex, drugs and rock'n'roll, the BBC has stopped all scrutiny of the Tories and turned its fire on the much more conservative (and, of course, the unforgivably non-Oxbridge) Gordon Brown. No that Brown doesn't deserve it. But so does Cameron.

Dave Burns

The most depressing aspect is the BBC Spokesman telling us that this "comic genius". I think that says more about how trashy the BBC can get. I agree with the comments that the BBC can produce outstanding programmes but they shine out against the run of the mill rubbish that occupies 90% of their output.

Trumpeter Lanfried

David [7.02 PM] Your defence of the BBC is like the curate's defence of his bad egg. "No, no, My Lord, I assure you parts of it are excellent." Yet in the last three years the organisation you defend has seen the resignations of its Director-General, the Chairman of its Governors and the Controller of its main television channel. In each case the resignations followed devastating criticisms by an independent enquiry. I call that failure. You argue that the alternatives would be worse. Maybe so, but that is a different point. The BBC deserves to be judged by its own lofty aspirations, not by comparison with the bottom end of the market. As to the licence fee; I am glad you are comfortable with it. But possibly you are not a single mother living on a small income on a sink estate, in which case you might struggle to find £135.50 a year and might be unimpressed with the £6 million a year which the ruthless negotiators at the BBC have agreed to pay Jonathan Ross. Yes, we've loosened up a little since John Reith's day. You don't mind twenty F***s on Christmas night. But I notice you still type G-d instead of God.

George Steiner

Winning awards by the BBC is big with our friend David. But awards are always won by somebody. If the BBC evaporates tomorrow there will still be award winning programs. Awards are an invention of the enterainment idustry for self promotion. But a forced lisence fee is an unjust flat tax on every household. If our friend David thinks it is so wonderfull then it should be voluntarily paid by him and his like and let the BBC survive by its wits and raise funds.

How tattyfilarious

On Christmas Eve I had the pleasure to watch a comic genius perform: Ken Dodd. On Christmas Day I saw Catherine Tate. Appalling and not even funny. What's wrong with these modern day comedians ? PS. One thing: they have no sense of timing and appear to shout louder and louder or use foul language in a vain attempt to achieve comic effect. And for those who say "Why didn't I turn off", I was visting relatives.

David

"Your defence of the BBC is like the curate's defence of his bad egg. "No, no, My Lord, I assure you parts of it are excellent." Er, yes, and? Parts of it could indeed use improvement, but parts of it are very good indeed. Are you saying I can only either argue it's all good or it's all bad, with no point in between? Very dogmatic that. "You argue that the alternatives would be worse. Maybe so, but that is a different point. " It's precisely the point. I see no point in getting rid of something if the alternatives are far worse.

Trumpeter Lanfried

David [3.17 PM] Sure, it doesn't have to be all good or all bad and some of the BBC's output is still very good. But year by year the good stuff is being driven out to the margins by the pursuit of ratings and now and again, for example when a BBC spokesman defends Catherine Tate's obscenities by describing her as a comic genius, we realise how far standards have fallen. Your second point is bad. The alternative to a second-rate BBC is a first-rate BBC. That's what we pay for and that's what we are entitled to.

Ilia

So because the BBC makes some very good programmes which nobody else can or does make, we must continue to fund it to make bad programmes which many other organisations can and do make? Presumably other channels would have been delighted to fund and screen Catherine Tate's programme. Nobody could have any cause to complain if they had done so; those other channels are not supposed to be providing a public service, and they are not taking public money to do so. The BBC, on the other hand, needs to do more of the stuff that makes it better than other channels, and far less of the stuff that makes it look no better, if it is to continue to carry public support both moral and financial.

CFB

Presumably Bien Pensant is not aware of SkyArts - channel 267, which already has the type of programme that BBC4 really should be showing.

Nick

I find David's remarks insufferably pompous. Anybody can see that the BBC is a disgraceful waster of money and, with the plethora of alternative channels, it should see if it can compete with them in the market place, rather than laying claim to money from all of us as a God-given right, irrespective of whether we want to watch their tripe.

Christopher Seaton

My Grandfather used to say that when vulgarity begins, humour ends. Largely true but it would wipe out 99% of so called comedy today.

stafford

The problem is that the BBC has a vice-like grip on the Internet, where it has a range of good material and apparently unlimited funding. Its domestic political stance is dreadful and runs counter to the long term interests of Western civilization and British culture - if that still survives. It is the fifth column, 'par excellence'.

Archie

If people want Sky they pay for it and I for one pay gladly. I don't want the BBC but have to pay for it. Spot the difference? Let those who wish to have the BBC pay for it, and then see how long it lasts.