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...

[davetuc]

Very strange story. I would have thought it the other way round....The BBC would have forced all presenters to wear them, whether they wanted to or not.

[andy-hughes]

If high profile people wear symbols of certain charities or to commemorate certain events in history, then that increases the awareness of the charities / events, which, within reasonable guidelines, is a good thing.

For that reason, all presenters and most guests on television around 11 November wear poppies - and I would suggest it is mandatory for BBC presenters to do so.

If the BBC are then going to present a consistent policy, it would be logical that something as signficant as World Aids Day would be an event it is appropriate to support by having its high-profile presenters and guests wearing an emblem - if they choose to do so.

How on earth then, is there an apparent policy where guests on Mr Norton's show were allowed to wear the emblem, and he was prevented - had he adhered to the policy.

It shows a lack of consitency, and a predjudice bordering on loopy, to allow guests on a show to wear an emblem, and a host who I am sure has a vested interest in the event - is prevented from wearing his own emblem.

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.

I will be interested to hear what the BBC - hardly a model of good business or social practice - is going to say to explain its policy, and what, if anything, it plans to do with its miscreant presenter.

Thus far, they have 'reprimanded' his production company - well big chuffin' deal - I bet GN is really quaking in his shoes!!!

[craft1948]

" 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."

PMSL..............So Norton is bigger than the BBC!!

[Old_Geezer]

Every day must be earmarked to at least one cause or commemoration. I think the BBC ought to leave it to folk’s discretion as long as nothing genuinely offensive is displayed.

[sp1814]

andy_hughes

Yeah...if I strain really hard, I suppose I can see why the BBC would have different guidelines for guests than it does presenters - but I still don't get why (say) on 'The X Factor' everyone wears a ribbon on WAD, without problem.

Now I'm wondering what Graham did on previous years.

...and also, how bizarre it would look to see Jeremy Clarkson wearing an AIDS ribbon on the Graham Norton Show...and Graham not!!!

[wolf63]

I would have thought that the wearing of a ribbon to support a charity was a purely personal choice. It is not an intrusive item, it is subtle and it still gets its message across.

They are wrong to control what people do and wear in this heavy handed way.

Has the BBC changed its name to 'Big Brother Clowns' ?

[LazyGun]

Still a bit confused as to which policy has been contravened, to be honest. It is a policy aimed specifically at World Aids Day, or more generically at wearing symbols promoting "awareness days" in general?

How does such a ban square with the encouragement to wear a poppy?

[andy-hughes]

craft1948 - "So Norton is bigger than the BBC!!"

No, that's not what I am saying.

But bear in mind that Graham Norton is not employed by the BBC, and his production company is owned by ITV, so suppose he told the BBC that he and his production company were taking his massive audience back to commercial television - he may not be bigger than the BBC, but believe me, he holds enough clout for them to be wary of crossing him in matters which are so clearly biased and unreasonable.

[ToraToraTora]

no one should be forced to wear or not wear, personal choice. I know that the PC brigade have done their best to remove these choices but generally these sorts of tokens should be up to the person concerned.

[VHG]

The problem is once you allow people to start wearing any sort of "advertising" (and promoting a charity is advertising) where do you stop.

There was that woman on X Factor who had a perfume named after her and had it tattooed on her arm, and she kept pointing her arm towards the camera.

I think you need to ban everything because if you don't then how do you control it.

[Hopkirk]

I am more offended by Gary Lineker advertising crisps in his spare time.

[andy-hughes]

VHG - no problem, as long as they start by banning poppies from November 2014 - so that there is at least a modicum of consistency, which, in this instance, is glaringly absent!

[anotheoldgit]

Why is there a need for a special day anyway?

[andy-hughes]

AOG - to draw attention to this dreadful disease which still has no known cure - and to highlight the need for charitable donations for treatment and support of sufferers.

[jake-the-peg]

Yet if someone tries to go on air without a poppy at the start of November....

[VHG]

>>>I am more offended by Gary Lineker advertising crisps in his spare time.

I think advertising crisps is his job and he presents Match Of The Day in his spare time :-)

[anotheoldgit]

andy-hughes

/// VHG - no problem, as long as they start by banning poppies from November 2014 - so that there is at least a modicum of consistency, which, in this instance, is glaringly absent! ///

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?

[andy-hughes]

My point exactly jake.

It appears that poppies are mandatory for BBC presenters, which in my view should be a choice - as should the WAD emblem.

To enforce one, and ban the other for presenters, but not guests, appears loopy - as i said, an explanation would be welcome.

[anotheoldgit]

/// 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.

[viv38]

I wouldn't AOG, he gets on my nerves !