More from the BBC

[aumentou]

And now, a letter from the BBC, quoted and in italics, with translations from me attached:

"Dear Audience Member
Reference CAS-692726-DXJVHR

Thank you for your email regarding Russell Howard’s Good News, broadcast March 31 2011 at 22.30 on BBC Three."

We are going to start with a pretence of politeness, so that you don't have anything to complain about on that score.

"It is never our intention to cause offence, so of course it troubles me to hear of cases where we may have done so inadvertently."

We are liars. We could not be arsed to wonder whether our show would cause trouble or strife, because if we had it would have taken all of two seconds to work out that it would, and then we wouldhave had to do some more work writing a bit more show! So we showed it anyway. Fuck you if you didn't like it.

"This sketch was not about transgender people per se,"

We're still liars. We used the word ladyboy, which is usually used about transgender people.

"and while the BBC and the programme makers sincerely regret any offence we have caused to you, we would like to stress that the comments were not targeted at the transgender community."

It's totally not our fault that we used a word about transgender people and then some transgender people got upset. Who could have predicted that?

"The sketch was about a fictional budget airline..."

We think you weren't paying attention, so we're going to patronise you.

"...and the aim was to poke fun at the age old tradition of men dressing as women for laughs,"

We're still liars. For one, you don't refer to men in dresses as "ladyboys", so we were very much not referring to men in dresses. For another "poking fun at" the tradition of men dressing as women for laughs would mean doing something different from that, as opposed to what we actually did, which was dress some men up as women and then laugh at them.

" very much in the vein of Les Dawson and Kenny Everett."

We haven't learned anything since the seventies, and are happy to have a minority we are still allowed to make jokes about.

" We’re sorry if you felt this went too far but we have to credit the audience with the ability to discern that this is what we meant."

It's your fault you're upset, so fuck off.

"We are acutely aware that there are sensitivities around particular subjects and give careful thought to how to deal with such issues in comedy."

We're completely blase about your complaints because we know there's fuck all you can do.

"I appreciate and understand your strength of feeling on this matter and we will certainly bear it in mind going forward."

Bye now. We're going to ignore you.

"It is very helpful for us to hear the opinions of our audience, whether positive or negative, and I'd like to thank you for taking the time to contact us with your thoughts."

And now we will pretend to be polite, while telling you to fuck off once again.

"Warmest regards
Sean Hancock
Executive Producer

www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

NB This is sent from an outgoing account only which is not monitored. You cannot reply to this email address but if necessary please contact us via our webform quoting any case number we provided."

Oh, by the way, we aren't going to bother reading any follow-ups you send either. Really, just fuck off.

Comments

[mr-s-face.livejournal.com]

So yeah. Since I don't technically need a license, I'll be cancelling that. Also, more complaints.

[musichalldiva.livejournal.com]

It's a form letter, alright, where they just insert the appropriate bit (patronise/fawn here) it is identical to the one that they sent me after an episode of Bargain Humt - S**t, now you know I watched it - once - where they were similaly foul to the Goth community. I fair saw red there!
Methinks that this go further? Savage them!

[mr-s-face.livejournal.com]

So they didn't even write it for this programme. I feel the love.

Further complaint lodged. I'm annoyed about this one.

[cowprintavenger.livejournal.com]

Since they respond to everyone's complaints with the exact same letter, you should get as many people as possible to send them word for word the same complaint. It won't do much, but at least it'll be irritating to whoever has to read them all.

[rich-jacko.livejournal.com]

Having been on the receiving end of such campaigns, I can assure you it isn't. In fact, it makes you look really productive to your bosses because it only takes seconds to read and reply to a letter you've read loads of times before. All you'd be doing is wasting a small part of the resources of a publicly funded organisation, which is kind of self-defeating.

[mayfly182.livejournal.com]

Musichalldiva, did they also claim that one wasn't about the Goth community?

[musichalldiva.livejournal.com]

Oh yes! exactly so, that it was not specifically aimed at the Goth Community, so, playing the 'Adams Family' theme tune wasn't? funny, every time I went through the school yard, the sad chavvy ( community label omitted) swine used to chant it, and it was aimed directly at me! I got my own back at them though! :-)

[kissmedeadly.livejournal.com]

What are you actually hoping to achieve here?

As I understand it you have limited energy and a number of current crisis level practical issues, plus obviously the "managing my NHS crap" that all of us with ongoing health issues face. The cost-benefit analysis of fighting a giant faceless bureaucracy isn't great.

[mr-s-face.livejournal.com]

Hoping? Well, maybe they'll stop doing this sort of thing.

Expecting? Nothing. I expect them to ignore all complaints the way everyone always ignores all complaints.

But... I don't see any other options. For one thing, my head filled with words and rage when I got that crappy form letter from them. It had to be released somehow, and a second complaint seemed slightly more productive than incoherent screaming at the computer.

[kissmedeadly.livejournal.com]

Rage=energy - just channel it at something else. You have slightly less than a snowballs chance in hell of this making one iota of difference. You can make much more of an impact and have way more control over things that are local to you.
Screaming incoherently for a few minutes and then moving onto stuff that will make a difference to your daily life is probably less wasteful than spending hours debating issues and constructing carefully worded messages to a large organisation that changes very slowly.

[child-of-chance.livejournal.com]

I'd agree. Pick your arguments.
As an example, at work currently we're under threat of possible/probable/likely redundancy. One of our team is fighting it with anger and throwing out official complaints. Two of us are concentrating on applying for other jobs just in case. And one has been working at trying to actually change the grounds for the redundancy. I think the one complaining is wasting time and energy and emotion, as what he's doing won't alter the situation and won't really make him feel better when the adrenalin wears off. The one working to make something happen may be on the right track - but I wouldn't personally feel it was worth the effort! I'm one of the other two.