http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-22750680

It'd be nice to be able to judge the context of course...

Clare Balding has quite a good sense of humour as well so it's entirely possible she found it hilarious, especially as she's not normally one to shy away from controversial subjects. She strikes me as the "don't give it if you can't take it" type.

As far as I read of the story, she hasn't complained. The BBC have, for god knows what reason, felt the need to apologise for something that was broadcast as part of a challenge where the point is to convincingly argue something which most people would find objectionable. It's bordering on the ludicrous. They've got in trouble for things so often recently they've developed a sort of pavlovian response of making an apology every time someone says or does anything contentious.

Apart from everything else, given they do it every single time, it just looks insincere and pointless.

Having said that, Bob Mills is an appalling arse.

that received several complaints.

Ms Balding didn't complain, but listeners did. I think they were wrong given the nature of the show, but it's the nature of public broadcasting that you have to apologise when you upset your public. Even if it's only half a dozen knobs.

If the BBC had to issue an official apology every time somebody complained, their PR department would dwarf the rest of the organisation. The BBC gets complaints every single day of the year.


Nobody has the right to be offended on somebody else's behalf, unless that somebody else can't speak for themselves. Ms Balding patently is capable of speaking for herself, in public if she so wishes. I have no doubt if it came down to it, she'd make mincemeat of him. She apparently believes giving it as little publicity as possible is the best option. Pity the BBC didn't follow her lead and instead have now made it much more notorious than it would otherwise have been.


They haven't upset 'the public'. 'They' haven't upset anyone. This was not a matter of BBC policy or management decision. It was one crass 'comedian' saying something controversial to wind up a crowd. He should possibly apologise but that's debatable. The idea the organisation that just happened to broadcast it should apologise, especially given the context, is laughable.

I can't find any published figures, but a guy on the TV said they don't actually get that many. Half a dozen is a probably the most they've had for a radio show in years. They only get a couple of dozen when Top Gear does something spectacularly stupid, and a lot more people are paying attention to that.


Oh I quite agree. Such people offend me. How dare they presume to be offended on my behalf? However, we do not know that is the case here. Maybe they were personally offended by the subject, regardless of the Devil's Advocate nature of the piece.


But several members of the public expressed their upset, and that's how corporate responsibility works. The organisation is responsible for it's output. They can't say "Don't blame us, blame the people we employ" and I don't think anyone is laughing about it.

Reminds me of an article in a lads' mag that made a contest of "turning" lesbians straight.

They got hundreds after Saxgate. So that's untrue, unless they're only counting those within say 24 hours of the broadcast. Which would be not unreasonable (IMO) to invalidate tabloid-fueled hysteria but the bald statement is wrong.


Then they should have, you know, switched off. It is equally true that nobody has the right to require public radio to cater to their particular sensibilities. If something has been broadcast which is illegal, fair enough. However I think you'd go a long way trying to prove illegality in this case.

Basically put, your right not to be offended doesn't trump my right to listen to something that doesn't offend me.

(Obviously, in this case I don't mean 'you' personally, I mean in a more general sense)


Not really. It's how the BBC works because they're suddenly utterly terrified of adverse publicity for some unfathomable reason. Try getting half a dozen people to write to, I dunno, Shell complaining their garage sandwiches are rubbish, see if you get a public apology.


Actually, I don't think that's legally true, in the same way the royal mail isn't responsible for whether you like what you get in the post. The BBC has a requirement to make sure none of the things it broadcasts are illegal (no incitement, no breach of privacy, no contempt of court etc) but I don't think it's legally required to 'play nice'. It's quite within it's remit to be as offensive and rude as any other channel, as long as it stays the right side of the law. As I say, I think you'd struggle to make a case that what Mills said was illegal, boorish and crass as it was.


Maybe not, but the idea a corporation that employs tens of thousands of individuals and thousands of public figures should be responsible for everything every such employee says is equally nonsensical. There should be bounds of decency, I don't have any problem with that. But all crass jokes are not requiring of public censorship, and it doesn't change the fact this is actually a massive over-reaction.

Take a counter example - Shaun Ryder repeatedly said the word '[LIFTED]' (which will probably get censored, ironically) on Chris Evans' friday night show. At, what, 6.30PM. Evans apologised on air afterwards, no further action required. Rage Against the Machine famously played their song 'Killing In The Name of' (which has a rather.. fruity chorus) on Radio 5 Live at Breakfast and didn't bother censoring it. Again, on air apology, no further action taken or required.

Thus I find the reaction in this case oddly incongruous. We've had a way of dealing with people saying things that are rude and/or upsetting for some people on air for donkey's years. It's worked. Why all of sudden does this case require a public display of contrition beyond those?


Bad jokes are not illegal.

Without getting into what was said, there's one thing about this that really annoys me.....
People getting morally outraged on other people's behalf.
If she'd found it offensive, she'd have complained. Why can't other people mind their own businness?