Should Bbc Presenters Be Prevented From Wearing Red Ribbons In Recognition Of World Aids Day

[sp1814]

I'll be honest - I didn't even realise that these were BBC guidelines, and I'm not sure of the reasoning behind it...

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/dec/10/graham-norton-bbc-aids-ribbon-jeremy-clarkson

Although now come to think of it, I don't ever recall seeing a BBC present wearing a Marie Curie daffodil either...

[andy-hughes]

AOG - "Have we another JTP here.

The poppies are in remembrance to all those who fell in the two world wars, what does the red ribbon commemorate?"

I am unsure to what your first point refers, feel free to elaborate if you wish.

With regard to your second point, this issue is not the reason behind the emblem, it is about the policy regarding emblems.

If the BBC has a policy regarding a poppy emblem - and it appears it does to the point of possibly mandating their display, although I cannot confirm that - then it should be consistant in allowing other emblems to be displayed if presenters and guests so choose.

My issue is with the fact that Mr Norton, a gay man with, as I have mentioned - a vested interest in the charity as well as being a substantial donor, would - had the BBC ruled, been hosting his own show with every guest displaying support for WAD, while he would appear indifferent, or even against the charity by not wearing an emblem.

Consistency is what should be applied - either people appearing on BBC television wear emblems if they wish to do so - within reason - or they do not - but it appears to be one rule for guests, and another for presenters.

Again, I applaud Mr Norton's refusal to bow to petty bureauocracy as yet undefined or explained.

All those apearing on the X-Factor on ITV wore ribbons, and western civilisation has not crumbled so far.

[sp1814]

ToraToraTora

I know what you mean - there was a big furore over Jon Snow's refusal to wear a poppy on tv during the run up to Rememberance Sunday a couple of years ago, but this isn't anything to do with the 'PC brigade'. This is the opposite, surely?

[andy-hughes]

AOG - "/// I roundly applaud Mr Norton for his stance - I am sure he knows that the BBC are actually powerless to do anything in the light of his rebellion, since they need him far more than he needs them. ///

Oh you really think so do you Andy?

I am sure most of us would not miss Mr Norton's over the top campiness on our screens."

Yes I really do think so AOG.

But to clear up any doubts, i find Mr Norton a preening prissy ninny with an annoying laugh and the propensity to take anything and everything said to him as an excuse to make a sexual innuendo.

I think he plays both ends of a pantomome horse simultaniously, I absolutely cannot abide him, and never watch his TV show or listen to his radio show.

But that does not alter the fact that I agree with his rebellion on this occasion.

[sir.prize]

andy - ///But bear in mind that Graham Norton is not employed by the BBC///

So why do they pay him?

Graham Norton earned a staggering £2.61million from the BBC last year.

[andy-hughes]

sir.prize - the BBC pay the production company So Television to make The Graham Norton Show for them.

Mr Norton will be employed on a freelance contract by the BBC - so although they pay him, he is not employed directly, as in contracted, to the BBC.

[sp1814]

AOG

I think whether there should be a World AIDS Day or not is beside the point, as too our opinion of Mr Norton as a performer - the question is why the BBC takes this stance, when the commercial channels don't.

Actually - thinking about it, are the cancer awareness daffs banned too?

Also, I thought that poppies aren't to remember those who fell in two world wars. They are to remember those who fell in all wars, past and present.

[andy-hughes]

Exactly sp1814 - the issue is not the valiidty of the concept in question, it is about the BBC roughshod approach to displays of support, in which they are glaringly inconsistent.

I have made my status about Mr Norton clear, but I do entirely applaud and support him in this isue.

[viv38]

andy - how do you know these things ???

[andy-hughes]

viv38 - as a freelance culture writer, I am sent various links and messages about media matters.

[viv38]

Oh I see.

[sir.prize]

andy - thanks for your answer. I understand Norton's company produces programmes for BBC. However, do So Television also produce his Radio Two programmes?

[sp1814]

Just thought of something - if the point is that BBC presenters should be seen to be completely impartial and not support specific causes, then surely Jeremy Clarkson, who is also contracted to the BBC should have been censured for wearing a ribbon, seeing as he is too a BBC presenter, albeit in the capacity as a guest on this particular show???

[jno]

Norton is the Daily Telegraph's lonely hearts columnist. Be nice about him, aog, you may need his advice some day.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/graham-norton/10480420/Dear-Graham-Norton-my-mothers-always-favoured-my-big-sister.html

[sp1814]

AOG

You wrote

"Have we another JTP here."

In response to andy_hughes' challenge to VHG' stance that wearing the ribbon was promoting a charity.

I think that andy was saying that because money from the sale of poppies goes to the Royal British Legion (a charity), there's already a precedent.

My understanding (and andy can correct if my inference was wrong), is that if you allow one, why not the other - not that presenters should be banned from wearing poppies.

[pixie373]

I haven't read the whole thread yet, but i don't think they should wear them on TV. Where would it stop? People being offended that certain causes and charities are left out? I think it's best to leave it as personal choice.

[Prudie]

Just a note on semantics, when did 'guidelines' become orders?

[sp1814]

pixie373

That already happened when Jon Snow decided that he didn't want to wear a poppy a couple of years ago.

[pixie373]

I don't think they should wear them on TV at all. What they personally support in their own time, is up to them.

[andres]

'Each to his own'. It should be up to the individual and no-one else.

[naomi24]

Perhaps the BBC doesn't object to poppies because, unlike charities that deal with specific causes, the Royal British Legion works with people that in one way or another have been, and are, relevant to the nation as a whole. It probably wouldn't do for presenters to be seen to support some charities and not others. Not sure I've worded that well.