Kate Thornton also claimed that she was at home, watching, at the very moment Judy Finnegan's bra was exposed. Balls, she heard about it afterwards like everyone else.

Doesn't it invalidate the whole concept of "voting" if they can just switch one clip for another on a whim? Isn't the whole thing a total, dishonest sham?

>Doesn't it invalidate the whole concept of "voting" if they can just switch one clip for another on a whim? Isn't the whole thing a total, dishonest sham?
>

Yes, but this is Channel 4 at their arrogant best. A combination of altering a public vote, disregarding the opinions of others (a.k.a. who made the decisions for/against to show that clip?), and edit, edit, edit.

Happy New Year, btw.

tV hell of course, even though That Thornton woman said she felt no embaressment. They probably just wanted to include Madeley again anyway... after all, they'dalready mentioned that he's all over the poll... which is a load of bollocks as far as i remember.

>
>....and finally...what on earth is it with these soddin' clip shows these days? At one time you'd see on the captions both the production company and broadcaster if applicable. Take University Challenge. 100 Moments....tagged it as (BBC2). Shurely it should read Granada Television for BBC (?) - Or is this more laziness creeping in?

Not laziness in this case, I suspect. As I point out at greater length in the Animal Kwackers thread (see above), Tyne Tees (who made the compilation) relied on a suspiciously large amount of its own in-house archive - plus that of Yorkshire TV, too (and once again, I ask, are YTV and TTTV linked these days - they certainly were during the 1970s, which is when most of the in-house clips date from).

We didn't get as far as finding out that Judy Finnigan exposing herself was at #3.

OH yes, incidentally - Arabella Weir mouthing off about stereotyping races. Presumably her No Offence character (aren't white South Africans such a fucking easy target?) has been put to bed. Not least because it was rubbish.

>Doesn't it invalidate the whole concept of "voting" if they can just switch one clip for another on a whim? Isn't the whole thing a total, dishonest sham?
>

Speaking as a TV producer (albeit one whose last job was on a series recently voted by viewers of ITV Teletext into top position as the Worst Programme of 2000 - "Celebrity!") I can understand why they felt the need to re-edit. The "100 Moments" thing tonight was a REPEAT, so the 'poll' context is hardly fresh and therefore irrelevant now the compilation, in their eyes, has become just an entertaining filler of air time.

Obviously the clip of TPT on Skinner is too dodgy to be shown, and so too is that VHS-derived footage of the BeeGees walking off Clive Anderson. These were considered OK within the original transmission, in the context of a "review", but presumably this "fair dealing" defence for using non-clearable material wouldn't stand again for the repeat. They snipped it out in one instance, and replaced the other completely.

The decision to include Judy Finnigan's bra incident, though, is either sheer genius on the part of the production team/compilation producer, or pure laziness, depending on one's point of view.

What better way to solve a gaping hole than stick in something recent, obvious, pleb-pleasing, and with a self-referential nod to the number one slot in the poll? Why go to all the trouble and expense of making a brand new entertainment show, when you can spend half a day shooting fresh interviews with Kate Thornton and a fashion editor from the Sun and recycling material that's already been recycled dozens of times before?

>What better way to solve a gaping hole than stick in something recent, obvious, pleb-pleasing, and with a self-referential nod to the number one slot in the poll? Why go to all the trouble and expense of making a brand new entertainment show, when you can spend half a day shooting fresh interviews with Kate Thornton and a fashion editor from the Sun and recycling material that's already been recycled dozens of times before?

I don't think they had to do even that - the three 'experts' (Sun fashion editor, Independent journalist and Thornton) were filmed on the same sets as they had been for 'Celebrity Frock-Ups' that was shown the week between Christmas and New Year. It looked like an unused item from that - same production company, I imagine. Two of the three 'experts' were conspicuous by thier absence from the rest of the show, weren't they?

>>It looked like an unused item from that - same production company, I imagine. Two of the three 'experts' were conspicuous by thier absence from the rest of the show, weren't they?

According to my girlfriend it WAS in the Celebrity Frock-Ups as well...

>....and finally...what on earth is it with these soddin' clip shows these days? At one time you'd see on the captions both the production company and broadcaster if applicable. Take University Challenge. 100 Moments....tagged it as (BBC2). Shurely it should read Granada Television for BBC (?) - Or is this more laziness creeping in?
>

I've been told (by lawyers, like) that captions don't need to credit the production company as such- the broadcaster will do.
Except when you are 'fair dealing', using footage without their direct permission but for purposes of 'criticism or review', in which case you need to mention the production company and the date of transmission- mainly because fair-dealing worries the lawyers.

However if you've paid for the clip, unless the supplier specifies a certain credit you can pretty much do as you please.

The reference to Keith Chegwin refusing to allow his 'Naked Jungle' appearance to be shown was also cut.

Odd that they had a longer edit of Katie Puckrick explaining the Bee Gees incident on stand-by.

By the way, something we forgot to mention - whenever people feel like slagging off Pan's People's over-literal dance routines, they *always* allude to the Gilbert O'Sullivan 'Get Down' clip. But if they knew anything about the fantastic Gilbert, they'd know that said song is actually about a literal dog anyway. Y'know, like 'Martha My Dear'. So their dancing was entirely justified.

>The reference to Keith Chegwin refusing to allow his 'Naked Jungle' appearance to be shown was also cut.

I'm sure they did refer to this, though? "...so he's missing from this item" or some such.

Also, was the clip of Shakin' Stevens jumping on Richard Madeley slightly longer than in the previous version? And why wasn't it listed as 'revised repeat' in the Radio Times?

>And why wasn't it listed as 'revised repeat' in the Radio Times?

Since when (since 1989?) has the Radio Times ever been so precise? The Christmas edition probably went to press in August anyway...

>Obviously the clip of TPT on Skinner is too >dodgy to be shown, and so too is that VHS->derived footage of the BeeGees walking off >Clive Anderson. These were considered .OK >within the original transmission, in the >context of a "review", but presumably >this "fair dealing" defence for using non->clearable material wouldn't stand again for >the repeat. They snipped it out in one >instance, and replaced the other >completely.

If this were the case, how come the Julian Clary clip wasn't removed?

Presumably because it wasn't actually a legal issue - as far as I know Lamont never complained - but merely the copyright holders refusing to release the tapes for fear of tarnishing the 'image' of the comedy awards.

The same presumably goes for Minipops and Junior Showtime...

>merely the copyright holders refusing to release the tapes for fear of tarnishing the 'image' of the comedy awards.

Which could, of course, have risen to legal action. I have a friend who used to work for Michael Hurll who believes he would have been completely furious about its use, I assume no-one from Hurll's camp has started proceedings. Not that we've heard about yet. Furious or not, perhaps he doesn't care any more....