Revision of BBC Editorial Policy - part 2

Taste, Standards and the BBC was commissioned following the Jonathan Ross/Russell Brand debacle in October 2008. The Report is co-authored by Alan Yentob and Roly Keating, and sponsored by Jana Bennett and David Jordan. One of the recommendations in the Report deals with malicious intrusion, intimidation and humiliation:

BBC programmes must never condone malicious intrusion, intimidation and humiliation. While they are all aspects of human behaviour which may need to be depicted, described or discussed across the BBC’s factual and non-factual output, they must never be celebrated for the purposes of entertainment. New guidance is needed to ensure that everyone involved in programme making for the BBC understands that malicious intrusion, intimidation and humiliation are unacceptable.

Humiliation is already covered in current guidelines, here and here.

The Trust, however, wanted to make editorial controls even stricter. The Draft Editorial Guidelines in part based on Taste, Standards and the BBC are, as we'll see, in fact weaker than those nominally in force at present.

1) The Introduction to current Editorial Guidelines makes clear in unambiguous terms that Any proposal to step outside these guidelines must be discussed with Controller Editorial Policy. It is marked out in red, as being a mandatory referral to the Controller, who at present is David Jordan, one of the co-sponsors of Taste, Standards and the BBC.

In contrast, examine the replacement wording from the new draft guidelines (pdf). The comparable section (2.1) now states Any proposal to step outside the Editorial Guidelines must be editorially justified. The change appears to cede to programme makers rather than the Controller/Director of Editorial Policy the initial decision as to whether or not output can breach guidelines. This "democratisation" of the decision-making process weakens the authority of the guidelines beyond measure.

The Draft continues: It must be discussed and agreed in advance with a senior editorial figure or, for independents, with the commissioning editor. This change confirms a nebulous and unaccountable line of authority.

The Director Editorial Policy and Standards must also be consulted does not imply that he has the authority to refuse permission. In fact the words "also" and "consulted" imply that he now is to have a subsidiary role. Perhaps this explains why David Jordan's job title seems to have changed from "Controller of Editorial Policy" to "Director of Editorial Policy and Standards."

2) Next, compare the following from current guidelines:

We aim to reflect fully and fairly all of the United Kingdom's people and cultures in our services. Content may reflect the prejudice and disadvantage which exist in our society but we should not perpetuate it. We should avoid offensive or stereotypical assumptions and people should only be described in terms of their disability, age, sexual orientation and so on when clearly editorially justified.

with the change made in the new draft (5.4.37):-

We aim to reflect fully and fairly all of the United Kingdom’s people and cultures in our services. Content may reflect the prejudice and disadvantage which exists in our society but we should not perpetuate it. In some instances, references to disability, age, sexual orientation, faith, race, etc. may be relevant to portrayal. However, we should avoid careless or offensive stereotypical assumptions and people should only be described in such terms when editorially justified.

The BBC has added "In some instances, references to disability, age, sexual orientation, faith, race, etc. may be relevant to portrayal." There's nothing unreasonable about explicitly clarifying a point. But another subtle change has been made - the need to be "clearly editorially justified" has now been downgraded to "editorially justified."

The portrayal guideline is further compromised by the addition of 5.4.38:

When it is within audience expectations, we may feature a portrayal or stereotype that has been exaggerated for comic effect, but we must be aware that audiences may find casual or purposeless stereotypes to be offensive.

I have been trying to clarify certain aspects of the BBC's Editorial Guidelines as they apply at present. Both Alan Yentob and David Jordan have been contacted, but so far with little success. It seems that nominal protections for minorities will be further eroded away if the proposed changes are adopted by the BBC Trust.

Revision of BBC Editorial Policy - part 1

A meeting between the BBC's Director-general and the BBC Trust was held on Thursday 30 October 2008. It was part of a damage limitation exercise following public outrage at the behaviour of Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand on a Radio 2 show. The Director-general made it clear that there had been a serious breach of editorial compliance which should never have happened.

A plan was put in place to take the heat off the BBC, which at the time was being battered by the press. One measure adopted was to request a study into the appropriate boundaries of taste and standards across all BBC output. The next day Sir Michael Lyons was interviewed by a skeptical John Humphrys. Sir Michael said that the BBC must be firmer on excesses, and there was a "need for even stricter editorial controls."

A report was published on 24 June 2009 entitled Taste, Standards and the BBC (blog 24 June 2009). It cost licence fee payers £288,456.28 excluding the cost of BBC staff effort. The Report's conclusions inform the Draft Editorial Guidelines (pdf), which are the subject of a Trust consultation, closing in four weeks' time.

Contrary to Sir Michael's intention, as given in his interview with John Humphrys, Newsround Blog believes that the new draft guidelines are in reality weaker than the current guidelines. A significant change has been made, such that the proposed guidelines have less weight because their authority is seriously diminished. This will be explained in the next part.

Consultation timeline (taken from BBC Trust Terms of reference (pdf))

October 2009 - Draft of the new Editorial Guidelines published and public consultation launched

October to December 2009 - Trust Unit gathers information from BBC Executive, public consultation, audience research, outcome of the implementation of the Audio Visual Media Services Directive in UK legislation, outcome of the current Ofcom Broadcasting Code consultation, and other sources

24 December 2009 - Public consultation closes

January to March 2010 - Trust analyses data

Spring 2010 - Trust considers findings from the data and implications for the Editorial Guidelines

Summer 2010 - New Editorial Guidelines finalised and published

Yesterday's Newsround top story at 5pm

Ore: Tonight David Beckham reveals he has asthma.......

Ore: Hi there I'm Ore. First to our top story, and a spokesperson for Becks has confirmed he's had asthma since he was a boy. The LA Galaxy midfielder was seen using an inhaler during the club's last game. Now asthma charities say it proves the condition doesn't have to hold you back. (video clip begins)

Ore: David Beckham has been at the top of world football for years. And having a popstar wife has meant that Becks career, as well as his family life, have always been played in the public eye. But when his team, LA Galaxy, took on Real Salt Lake in the MLS cup final on Sunday - a really big game in America - David Beckham was pictured for the first time using an inhaler. Reports now say he's had the condition since he was a kid. Other sports stars that have asthma include Chelsea's Frank Lampard, athlete Paula Radcliffe and Olympic swimmer Rebecca Adlington. And the news that David Beckham also has asthma is a massive boost for the million or so kids that have it in the UK.

Neil Churchill (Asthma UK): One of the things that children often tell me is they think there's a stigma associated with asthma - they feel that they're being singled out and that people are laughing at them, it's a bit embarrassing. And the fact that someone as successful as David Beckham, and as cool as David Beckham, is saying he's got asthma and it's no big deal - I think will really give people the confidence to live with asthma and not to be ashamed of it.

Girl: My friend has asthma and he can't really play that much sport. But David Beckham has asthma and he can play sport. So it shows that my friend can still play football.

Boy: I was shocked because I've never seen David Beckham out of breath on the football pitch. And it shows that even though you have asthma it can't stop you from doing sports.

Girl: It shouldn't stop anyone from like having a dream of being a footballer, for example, as he is.

Ore: Despite his condition, having asthma doesn't seem to have got in the way of Beckham's career. Hopefully paving the way for more sufferers onto the path of success.

Thousands of children went to a UNCRC (United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child) rally in Poole, Dorset yesterday to celebrate twenty years of the Convention and to further promote the rights of children. Press Packer Jessica covered the event for Newsround's website.

Last year the four UK children's commissioners authored a joint report (pdf) to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. In October 2008 the Committee made its recommendations for the United Kingdom. The Committee said urgent measures were needed to address intolerance and discrimination against vulnerable groups of children. ---Recently advertisements have appeared on UK television which promote a website seemingly intended to disseminate the message of international human rights amongst young people (www.youthforhumanrights.org) The organisation behind the campaign is a Scientology front, and people should be aware of this fact.

Whose side are you on? - continued

Recently published figures indicate that 47% of 14-year-olds have experienced some sort of bullying. The figure is a little less for 15-year-olds (41%) and lower still for 16-year-olds (29%). Evidence suggests that kids who are bullied at 14 and 15 obtain significantly poorer GCSE results - equivalent to two grades lower.

Are those who stand by and watch whilst others get bullied no better than the bullies themselves? That's what Newsround wanted kids to think about when they called their latest Special Whose side are you on?

In the beginning we see Jack waking up at the start of a school day. He walks to school with his sister, Ellie, who asks why he's been avoiding his friend Liam. We see Liam being bullied, but Jack has been keeping out the way watching it happen and doing nothing to help Liam.

In school that day Jack meets the first of his celebrity advisers, Aston Merrygold from JLS. Aston asks "do you know what it's like to be bullied?" and explains that he was the only black kid in his football team and suffered name-calling and verbal abuse which made him feel miserable.

Jack refuses to walk back with Liam after school. Liam asks him "whose side are you on?"

Jack bumps into Joe Calzaghe at the after-school boxing club, and is surprised to learn that Joe was also picked on. We then see what happened to Joe when he was younger. Kids went biking to Joe's house trying to pick a fight with him. Joe resisted the taunts and got called 'sissy' and other names. He focussed on his boxing and it helped him ignore the bullying.

Jack is still reluctant to help Liam. On his way back home Jack looks in a TV shop window and sees Patsy Palmer - Bianca from EastEnders. Patsy relates her experiences of being bullied because of her ginger hair - it was the worst time of her life. Patsy tells Jack that bullied kids need help, and they need their friends to stick by them.

Moments later Jack meets George Sampson, winner of Britain's Got Talent 2008. George tells Jack that he had dance lessons when the other kids were playing football. They thought he was 'weird,' but he knew who his real friends were - the ones who stood by him and didn't care what anyone else thought.

Back home Jack's sister Ellie is online, chatting to Liam. Ellie says that Liam seems really lonely and asks her brother why he doesn't like him any more. Ellie suggests that Jack should talk to Liam, but when Jack refuses she tells him that he is just as bad as the bullies.

Jack is watching TV in the evening when he meets the last celebrity, Gemma Hunt from CBBC. Gemma tells Jack not to bury his head in the sand, and that the bullies will stop if they see that Liam has got friends like Jack around him. Gemma tells Jack to decide whose side he's on.

Jack is in bed mulling over all the advice, and in the morning he decides the right thing to do is to let everyone know that he is standing by his friend Liam.

Whose Side Are You On?

That's the question Newsround is asking viewers to ponder in a special programme on Monday afternoon to mark the start of Anti-bullying Week. The programme considers what it's like to be an onlooker, but do nothing to help. In the show we will see Jack do nothing while his friend Liam is bullied at school.

Newsround would like to hear from kids in a similar situation. "Whatever your story," says Newsround, "we want to know about it!"

Phil Redmond's RTS lecture - part 2 of 2

In January 2008 Phil Redmond was interviewed by Stuart Jeffries of The Guardian -

Stuart: What would you be doing if you weren't working on this [organising the Liverpool City of Culture events]?

Phil: I was going to say I'd be driving through Grange Hill's 30th anniversary celebrations, but that wouldn't be true. The BBC has abandoned what Grange Hill was about in order to attract viewers aged six to 12 rather than its traditional 13-plus constituency, so there's nothing to celebrate.

Stuart: Do you feel as though the BBC has strangled your baby?

Phil: I do. The most irritating thing is I'm not surprised. It once provided a rites-of-passage touchstone that parents and teachers could use to start conversations. Children under nine can't really have the discussions about the moral issues that Grange Hill was about. It's a shame it's become about ratings. Culture should be about more than that.

A few weeks after the interview Anne Gilchrist axed Grange Hill claiming, untruthfully, that CBBC's audience overwhelmingly supported her decision.

Towards the end of 2008 Phil Redmond spoke at the Media Festival in Manchester. He said "Broadcasting is completely disconnected from the cultural life of the nation."

Phil talked more about the disconnect affecting children's TV in his RTS lecture in September 2009. Referring to the BBC's lack of provision for teenagers Professor Redmond charaterised the BBC Trust as finding Channel 4 cool, in contrast to the BBC - uncool. He lamented the fact that more of the BBC licence fee wasn't made available for children's television.

Phil: Teenage eyes, sensing a lack of local opportunity, role models or relevance ... they start to drift from their set texts as disinterest, disillusionment, detachment and disenfranchisement sets in - and in some areas antisocial behaviour becomes the comfort blanket. .... where are the cultural touchstones for those all-important rites-of-passage years? They're not on television. Because our broadcasters and regulators have decided that childhood ends at 12 ...... I suppose what really happened with Grange Hill in hindsight was that we highlighted, and then fixed the disconnect from Wheldon's world. Instead of a distant, structured, almost cosy world, we put on screen a life that most children would actually recognise. It was a reinterpretation of public service television for children. And in our fast moving digital environment it is even more imperative that we constantly re-examine what we mean by that term "public service broadcasting."

Phil: We cannot think about the future of children's TV without thinking about the BBC itself, and its licence fee. Why? Not just because it's now the only UK broadcaster still actively originating programmes for children. But more fundamentally, if you've downloaded a copy of the BBC Trust's Review of children's services and content from February of this year, the first line reads: "The BBC Trust believes that children's broadcasting is at the heart of the BBC's public service remit." We should stick it on a T-shirt and we should all wear it. The last line of James Murdoch's Mactaggart lecture reads: "The only reliable, durable and perpetual guarantor of independence is profit." These two lines from opposite ends of the broadcasting spectrum explain why our commercial broadcasters, ITV, Five, Sky and even the publicly subsidised Channel 4, have retreated from originating children's programming. And why the BBC alone stands. It's the reason why Grange Hill was produced at the BBC only after all ITV companies had turned it down ... the publicly funded broadcaster had taken the risks. In a world driven solely by profit, who makes the leaps of faith? Who takes the risks?

The full lecture can be viewed on YouTube

Phil Redmond's RTS lecture - part 1 of 2

As expected there were no Newsround reports this year about 11 Million Takeover Day.

Readers of Newsround Blog will know that the BBC discriminates against older kids - for example, the recent lack of published feedback from 15-year-olds (blog 2 November 2009.) And then there is the lack of programmes relevant to the lives of secondary school kids.

In February 2008 Anne Gilchrist, then Controller of CBBC, said that children's lives had changed a lot in recent years and that CBBC needed to reflect those changes (blog on 9 April 2008)

Perhaps Anne had in mind that most kids these days are undercover spies like the protagonists of M.I.High, or maybe school detectives like Fletcher Moon, rather than like the humdrum kids who went to Grange Hill. But I'm not sure kids themselves agree - and that's probably one reason why so many have been deserting television. This 'disconnect' was the theme of Professor Phil Redmond's Huw Wheldon lecture to the Royal Television Society in September.

Phil was introduced to the RTS audience by Lorraine Heggessey.

Lorraine Heggessey: ... He never patronised this young audience, nor did he shy away from controversy. He threw a hand grenade into the world of children's drama when, in 1978, Grange Hill burst onto our screens, changing the nature of children's drama forever. Children loved it even though - or largely because - it offended their parents. For the first time they saw the reality of their lives on screen rather than the sanitised twee view that had previously been on offer....

Despite Lorraine's introduction, it seems that the nature of children's drama did not change forever, and we have returned to the old days where the lives of real kids have once again been replaced with a sanitised twee image, but now with an added fantasy twist.

Phil began his lecture with some clips from the days of Wheldon's world children's TV and went on to state his belief that television can be "an empowering agent for social and cultural cohesion." He warned, though, that television itself was at risk, as the younger generation turn away from it.

It's 11 Million Takeover Day. No reports about it on Newsround so far, but will there will be anything later today? (see blog on 23 Sept 2009)

One of Newsround's reports on Monday was about parents lying on school application forms. Hayley said "It's all because parents want to make sure you go to the right school. But does that make it OK for them to cheat?"

Of course, as regular Newsround Blog readers would know, it's not only parents who cheat. What happens to all the feedback from 15-year-olds? I think Newsround has some explaining to do, so I've contacted the BBC to ask about the anomaly.

Nice to see that Newsround covered the UK Youth Parliament meeting in the House of Commons. I've been suggesting the programme do more reports about the Youth Parliament, so it was a step in the right direction.

But there are signs of the BBC's discrimination against older school kids (see blog dated 13 Dec 2006.) Although we do see feedback from the occasional 15-year-old, it seems that most feedback from them is destined for the cyberbin. Here are a couple of examples where the BBC received loads of messages, and I think the figures speak for themselves.

What do kids think of the X Factor's John & Edward? So far there are 45 responses from 14-year-olds but none at all from 15-year-olds on the webpage.

A few weeks back, on 28 September, Newsround reported news about schools banning coloured bracelets, and the programme asked kids for their views. Newsround published a total of 372 responses, including 49 from 14-year-olds. But again there are zero responses from 15-year-olds on the webpage.

Newsround is asking kids who've been cyberbullied to share their experiences. It remains to be seen how the BBC will treat the feedback they receive, and whether the problem will be reported in a fair way.

Friday Night with Jonathan Ross - 23rd October 2009



Tim Minchin was the third guest on last week's Friday Night with Jonathan Ross. Before chatting to Jonathan, Tim was invited to perform a song he'd specially written for the occasion.

During the performance the TV audience saw a couple of carefully posed views of the house band in the foreground, wearing T-shirts with Boy George logos, and Jonathan's guests - including Boy George - looking on (see screen shot above)

On Tuesday I promised to examine the lyrics.

The word 'poof' is offensive. It was used by a contestant on Channel 4's Big Brother in 2007. There were many complaints, with people comparing the seriousness with that of a racist word. Guidelines published jointly by Channel 4 & Five in 2008 state: "As with ethnic minorities and the disabled, the casual or insensitive use of offensive terms, such as ‘poof' or ‘queer', can cause serious offence, regardless of intention."

Two days ago Jeremy Paxman suggested that the word 'poof' is no longer heard on television. The following is taken from an item on Newsnight (28 October 2009) -

Paxman: Can you really do comedy without ever offending?

Paxman: There are some things you'd never see now:
(clip from BBC comedy programme 1975 - with English actor playing a Sikh)
(clip from BBC comedy programme 1970 (B&W))

Man (1970 clip): He fancies you.

Paxman: And there are some things you'd never hear now:-

Man (1970 clip): He's a poof. ....

Obviously Jeremy was wrong, as he'd know if he watched Friday Night with Jonathan Ross. But Newsnight, as we've seen, was right to indicate that 'poof' is offensive. The simple truth is that without collusion from Jonathan's house band, the BBC would no more be able to broadcast the word 'poof' than it would be able to use any other offensive term about a minority group.

So, simply put, Jonathan's house band confers a spurious legitimacy to the use of an offensive term. This is clearly appreciated both by Ross and his house band, and also by the BBC (see blog 26 October 2009). That this situation has been allowed to continue for so long is also partly due to Ofcom's complicity, though if their recent consultation document on Equality and Diversity is to be believed this should be about to change.

Tim Minchin's song plays a blinder, in that it subtly misleads listeners by referring to "the best solution to the problem you're inevitably having" with gay men in the house band. The song goes on to suggest that the licence-paying public don't want the BBC to employ LGBT people on the show, and spends time detailing examples of Daily Mail-type letters of indignation. Despite the insinuation that the BBC is worried about pressure from homophobes, I'd hazard a guess that the more substantive problem Ross and the BBC "are inevitably having" is from those who support equality and diversity, and who object to the word 'poof' and to the demeaning way Jonathan introduces his house band each week.

Just as Tim's song plays a blinder with Jonathan's public, so did Jonathan with Jeremy Piven three weeks ago (blogged on 13 October 2009). In both cases the suggestion is that opposition to Jonathan's house band results from prejudice. Jeremy Piven is a diverse-friendly actor, and Jonathan Ross knew that fact full well.

Kirsty Wark presented last night's Newsnight, and one of the items was about homophobia. Referring to the attack on James Parkes, Kirsty asked "Is this an isolated but horrific incident or is homophobia still just below the surface in our society?"

Reporter Jackie Long began her report from Old Compton Street in Soho which, she said, had over the years become synonymous with London's gay community. "But for the people here tonight," said Jackie, "the news of the brutal attack on a young gay man in Liverpool on Sunday is a reminder just how vulnerable they can be."

A studio debate followed. Johann Hari said that school anti-bullying policies which consistently address homophobic abuse were effective in reducing the problem. Kirsty asked about the role of faith schools, to which Johann answered that kids in those schools are 10% more likely to be bullied violently and 25% less likely to tell anyone.

Neither yesterday's Newsnight report nor the Channel 4 report had anything to say about Michael Causer, who was brutally murdered in a homophobic attack last year. The murder, in Liverpool, wasn't reported in most of the national media. And the trial of his murderers in February this year was similarly ignored.

Newsround Blog has consistently echoed the view of the British Psychological Society. I blogged in September 2006 that "the British Psychological Society had made clear that young people should not have to put up with homophobic bullying and that it should be combatted from Key Stage 1. Therefore Newsround should not avoid the topic."

Kids grow up hearing the word 'gay' used in a negative way at school, and nothing positive on kids' TV to counter it. Is it surprising that a generation despises and bullies gay people?

1} Schools, particularly faith schools, must clamp down against homophobia and homophobic bullying.

2} BBC TV must stop condoning, or in some cases colluding with prejudice. CBBC needs to make kids' programmes which affirm LGBT diversity and inclusiveness, as used to be the case.

So far BBC Vision has in no way lived up to its name. Hopefully the appointment of a new diverse-friendly Director of BBC Children's will afford an opportunity for positive change.

Channel 4 News this evening included an item about the worrying rise in homophobic hate crime across Britain. Trainee policeman, James Parkes, was off duty when he was attacked on Sunday night. He is seriously ill with head fractures.

James left a gay nightclub with friends, when some teenage boys across the road shouted homophobic abuse at them. PC Parkes was kicked and punched, and suffered a fractured skull, eye socket and cheekbone. Police believe that up to twenty kids may have been involved in the attack.

According to the Channel 4 report, Merseyside Police have recorded a 41% increase in homophobic hate crimes this year (April'08/March'09) compared with the previous year.

A policy officer from Stonewall said that a significant proportion of LGB people feel the need to alter their behaviour - whether that's not holding their partner's hand in public or not going to gay venues etc - simply to avoid being the victim of a homophobic hate crime.

Pete Price, a DJ and stand up comedian said he'd been attacked because of his sexuality. He said he'd always had to live with homophobia.

Jon Snow then interviewed Brian Paddick, and began by saying:-

The shocking thing about this particular incident is the youthfulness of the attackers, and people are saying that in their teens these kind of offenders are commonplace.

Brian Paddick said that what we're seeing is a resurgence of homophobia amongst young people.

Jon Snow: Where is that coming from? I mean who is influencing it?

Brian Paddick: 'Gay' is now used as a derogatory term by teenagers. It's used by certain Radio 1 DJs, and generally I think whether it's Nick Griffin appearing on Question Time and making homophobic remarks - across the board I think people are being encouraged to be homophobic.-----Last week's Friday Night with Jonathan Ross included a controversial song by Tim Minchin. I hope to deconstruct the lyrics in a future blog.

Recall that Michael Causer - a gay teenager - was murdered in Liverpool last year, and the man who kicked his head in was cleared of all blame by a jury at Liverpool Crown Court. According to witnesses Gavin Alker had used language such as "watch yourself, he's a poof" and "you little queer faggot" (see blog on 17 May 2009). Since then there have been other homophobic attacks, particularly in London, and last night there was a homophobic attack in Liverpool, with the victim, James Parkes, struggling for his life in hospital.

In yesterday's blog I wondered when the BBC will accept that its editorial decisions are often the wrong ones. As Controller of BBC One Jay Hunt is nominally the person responsible for the content of Friday Night with Jonathan Ross, and all BBC One programmes. I emailed her a few days ago, on 15 October:-

Dear Jay,

I understand from Editorial Guidelines that when the BBC broadcasts material which risks offending some of its audience you must always be able to demonstrate a clear editorial purpose. The Guidelines also refer to a "responsibility to protect the vulnerable," and mention that "people should only be described in terms of their disability, age, sexual orientation and so on when clearly editorially justified."

As you may be aware, there have been a number of violent attacks on LGBT people over the last few months, and although it would be churlish to blame the BBC for these attacks I don't think it unreasonable to say that much of the BBC's comedy is based on mockery of the LGBT minority. And in that sense the Corporation is not only reflecting the prejudice of society, but also helping to perpetuate it.

Please could you therefore have a word with Jonathan Ross and ask him to desist from the lewd innuendo with which he introduces his house band every week?

Many thanks.

I received a reply from Jay Hunt this afternoon. Jay tells me that Jonathan introduces the house band with "a knowing twinkle in his eye." And furthermore I'm told that his house band savour the moment.

Newsround is the BBC's flagship news programme for kids, and the way the programme deals with controversial issues is a litmus test for the Corporation's impartiality.

Should you be allowed to have your say even if what you're saying really upsets people?

Newsround posed that question (see previous blog) but surprisingly there was no feedback page for kids to give their answers or opinions.

The question as put was, in any case, a loaded one. Opposition to Nick Griffin's appearance on Question Time isn't based on a worry about "upsetting" people. It is based on the concern that normalising the BNP will, in turn, normalise racism and all that entails - racial abuse and violence.

When is the BBC going to accept that its editorial decisions, routinely regarded by them as sacrosanct, are often the wrong ones? It's perhaps significant that Mark Thompson recused himself on Thursday, instead leaving others to answer questions on this critically important topic.

Report on Newsround at 5pm last night -

Sonali: First - should you be allowed to have your say even if what you're saying really upsets people? That's what's being talked about today in a big row over a political party called the BNP. Its leader is appearing on a BBC show tonight, but lots of people think he's racist and shouldn't be allowed on. And in the last half hour protesters have broken through security here at BBC Television Centre in London.

Video, includes interviews with Martin Smith of Unite Against Fascism, and Mark Byford, the "BBC's deputy boss."

Sonali: This is the person at the centre of the row. His name is Nick Griffin and he's the leader of the British National Party or the BNP. Lots of people don't like the BNP because they think they're racist. The party doesn't allow anyone who isn't white to join them, and it doesn't like people from other countries moving here. The BNP insists that doesn't mean they're racist. They say they're just standing up for white people who were born in Britain. And some of the public agree, because in elections over the summer the BNP got more votes than they've ever got before. That's why the party's leader Nick Griffin has been invited to appear on Question Time tonight here at the BBC. Every week millions of people tune in to hear what politicians have to say. But as you can see people don't want to hear what Mr Griffin has got to say.

Martin Smith: We believe that Nick Griffin and the British National Party are a fascist racist party. And we believe his appearance on TV will create more racism and violence.

Sonali: But should you be able to say what you think even if people don't necessarily like what you've got to say? The BBC certainly thinks so.

Mark Byford: He's the leader of a party that's allowed to stand in elections, and the amount of support that they have now had at the most recent election means that they qualify for having an appearance on Question Time where they can be questioned about their policies by the British public.

Sonali: And even though lots of people think it's wrong to give people like Nick Griffin a chance to appear on TV, others believe if you don't like someone's views it's better to let them talk and then argue against them. In the last half hour around twenty-five protesters have broken through the gate at the entrance to the BBC's Television Centre. It looks like the situation is now under control, but the demonstration continues.

See also blog on 3 October 2009

I've now heard back from the BBC Trust regarding my email about BNP participation in BBC1's Question Time this Thursday (see blog dated 3 October 2009) but they say they don't answer hypothetical questions.

Ric Bailey, the BBC's Chief Political Adviser was asked a similar hypothetical question by Jon Snow on Channel 4 News earlier this evening - Would Ric have had Hitler on the programme?

Ric Bailey: Well, fortunately I wasn't in a position of being Executive Editor of Question Time then, but we have to deal with what we have now. Impartiality means you have to take a judgement about the present political context. And when the BNP won seats at a national level in that election in June we had to look afresh at the situation.

The BBC Trust wasn't consulted before BBC management decided to invite the BNP. It would be nice to think that, had they been consulted, the Trust would have counselled against the invitation. Peter Hain says that not only is the BNP a racist and fascist party, but it is also in breach of the law.

Even if the BNP was behaving within the law, the BBC's decision to invite them on such a debate programme is unsettling. Television, as Phil Redmond argued in his Huw Wheldon lecture last month, is "an empowering agent for social and cultural cohesion." Nick Griffin, however, has no intention of promoting cohesion and is instead using the medium to promote the divisiveness upon which his BNP thrives.

Jay Hunt, Controller of BBC One, sacked Carol Thatcher earlier this year, following a racist comment by Carol which was overheard by colleagues at the BBC. I wonder how much say Ms Hunt had over the forthcoming edition of Question Time to be broadcast to the nation. Very little, I suspect.

Lizo Mzimba left Newsround on 30 May 2008. He had worked on the programme for many years before becoming one of its senior reporters. Lizo was reputed to have an almost encyclopedic knowledge of Doctor Who and Harry Potter, and occasionally got important scoops on developments in those series. His enthusiasm for the Harry Potter books and films was something of a legend.

As a presenter Lizo was generally OK, but when things went wrong on live TV he was often unable to cope as well as some of his colleagues at the time, such as Ellie Crisell. Ellie, accompanied by her newborn baby and fellow presenter Laura, sent her good wishes when he left Newsround to become the BBC's Entertainment Correspondent.

Lizo started well at his new job, but more recently has been seen making a hash of things.

Last week, speaking on the BBC News channel, he reported that Ofcom wasn't intending to do anything about complaints over the Dannii Minogue remark (see blog on 11 October 2009) but unfortunately his reportage came across as sympathetic to the complainants.

And Yesterday morning, in a live interview with David Furnish who was attending Stephen Gately's funeral, Mzimba asked in general terms about a newspaper article that had appeared the day before. Furnish began to reply, mentioning Jan Moir and The Daily Mail by name, at which point Lizo became flustered and cut short the interview.

Quite a lot has been written recently about Strictly Come Dancing and X Factor. But there was another controversial programme at the weekend which received little attention from journalists - Friday Night with Jonathan Ross. It might seem that the programme is only controversial in this blogger's opinion - after all my dislike of Jonathan Ross is well known. However there are some rather curious edits to the latest edition of Friday Night with Jonathan Ross on the BBC iPlayer.

Mr Ross still introduces his house band with lewd innuendo pertaining to their sexual orientation. So far the band have endured his innuendo without complaint. However one of the band members, Ian Parkin, has recently made it known that he is endeavouring to stop homophobia, so I don't really think the BBC can allow Ross to continue in this way.

As part of the 'welcome' to his second guest, an American actor called Jeremy Piven, Jonathan posed a carefully crafted question: "Er we do things slightly differently here Piven. You lot may have your PR agents and your Botox technicians and your hair wranglers and your assorted fluffers and buffers. But you haven't got 4 Poofs and a Piano have you?"

Piven responded "No sir, I do not - thank God!"

The audience jeered - falteringly to start with, and then more loudly - without appreciating that, no doubt, Piven has reservations about the homophobia surrounding Ross and his house band, rather than intending his reply as a slight on the band itself.

The start of the programme, as it went out last Friday night is available here on YouTube, and the programme with two edits can be viewed on the iPlayer until this Friday. The cuts occur at approximately 4'59" and 5'06"

In the first cut Piven's "What I meant to say is I celebrate your four poofs and your pianos." was changed to "What I meant to say is I {CUT} and your pianos."

The second cut altered "By no means. I'm just trying to understand where I am and what's happening" to "By no means. I'm just trying to understand where I {CUT}" (sudden audience applause)

So it seems that with the BBC iPlayer the unmissable is missable after all.