New Deal Scanda
New Member
lol, there is no such thing as a "charities sector" so you obviously don't. It is called the third sector... consisting of non-profit organisations with and without charitable status.
a4e pulls Benefit Busters Episode 2 from On Demand and 4oD online
- Thread starter New Deal Scanda
- Start date
Does anyone know if they pulled the repeats ,and are they going to air the third episode.the silence from the bbc and media in general as been deafening
a little snippet from a site that follows tv ratings
Channel 4’s documentary Benefit Busters made a strong start last night, while ITV1 stalwart The Bill took another tumble in the ratings.
The C4 doc, which focuses on preparing 10 single mums who have been living on benefits to return to the workforce, was watched by 2.2m (9.7%) across the 9pm hour, in line with last week’s finale to How the Other Half Live.
A further 190,000 (1.1%) tuned in on C4+1. Of those watching the first transmission, 64% of the audience was female, and 44% of the audience was aged between 35 and 55. ABC1s made up 50% of the audience.
a little snippet from a site that follows tv ratings
Channel 4’s documentary Benefit Busters made a strong start last night, while ITV1 stalwart The Bill took another tumble in the ratings.
The C4 doc, which focuses on preparing 10 single mums who have been living on benefits to return to the workforce, was watched by 2.2m (9.7%) across the 9pm hour, in line with last week’s finale to How the Other Half Live.
A further 190,000 (1.1%) tuned in on C4+1. Of those watching the first transmission, 64% of the audience was female, and 44% of the audience was aged between 35 and 55. ABC1s made up 50% of the audience.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
...which is rubbish because it _was_ there - I watched it.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
I think I'll email them myself.
AKA pseudonym
Well-Known Member
Ive also heard the term 'Poverty Pimps' to describe the sector too.....
It might not be true of people at the lower levels, but I work for a "charity" myself, management make disgusting amounts of money, all coming out of funding allocated to our clients
It might not be true of people at the lower levels, but I work for a "charity" myself, management make disgusting amounts of money, all coming out of funding allocated to our clients
GOOD POST!
Yep. Some charities can be great but others and most of the main ones from what i can understand are extremely parasitical. The lack of shareholders just means that management can keep more money for themselves. And anybody who speaks out can be expected to be treated very uncharitably.
As your working in HR i wonder if you work with your charity bosses to remove anybody who questions why they earn so much?
Do you help managers sack the people they don't like Belushi?
As regards potential pulling of this show; C4 have a monthly saturday teatime talkback programme called the TV Show. Now this programme might be discussed there (each ep is usually first Saturday of the month). Viewers can ring up and air some views live. So perhaps there's a chance to put C4 on the spot on live tv if and when they discuss Benefit Busters. This coming saturday will be the first of the month as well.
New Deal Scanda
New Member
Can I point out the Royal Opera House charity paid someone over 1/2 million pounds (pre tax obviously lol) salary in 2007?
I can't see how that can be justified. Cancer research CEO is on over £200,000 I believe. There are numerous others taking these big chunks. Also please note the management fo a charity doesn't start and stop with the CEO - there will be directors etc. being paid large sums too.
I can't see how that can be justified. Cancer research CEO is on over £200,000 I believe. There are numerous others taking these big chunks. Also please note the management fo a charity doesn't start and stop with the CEO - there will be directors etc. being paid large sums too.
New Deal Scanda
New Member
Thanks for this, I will try to watch it.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
Hmm... interesting... I got a response saying that they no longer have the rights to show it online.
I've emailed back to try to see who withdrew their permission (probably they won't tell me that) and whether there are going to be any repeats.
I've emailed back to try to see who withdrew their permission (probably they won't tell me that) and whether there are going to be any repeats.
ATOMIC SUPLEX
Member Since: 1985 Post Count: 3
It may well have been someone very minor (maybe only appeared in that show) that someone forgot to get a release form for (blame the runner/production assistant). I don't mean someone just walking in the street though. They would have had to have complained, which would explain why it was there and now it's not. Usually even if someone hasn't signed a release form it can still be quite hard to get someone to pull a show. The fact that cameras were obviously there and filming can make it hard to complain that you didn't know what was going on (legally for broadcast prepossess). Release forms make this much much much easier though (and in some cases are still essential). It could be that they will blob the person (for identity reasons) and pop it back up (that is unless they are a more predominant character of course).
I once filmed in a club where a woman nearly got a show pulled because she was in shot for about five second (not predominantly and no words were spoken). Normally she would not have a case but it was a lesbian club and she had not come out to her family.
New Deal Scanda
New Member
Studio Lambert are a US-UK company:
"Chief executive Stephen Lambert is responsible for ground-breaking programs in Britain and America such as Wife Swap, The Secret Millionaire, Faking It and, most recently, Undercover Boss.
The UK creative team includes Peter Moore, the executive producer of the first series of BBC1's The Apprentice and Channel 4's Jamie's Kitchen, and Tania Alexander, who was responsible for the Channel 4 reality hits The Games and Shipwrecked: Battle of the Islands."
They know what they are doing so release forms would be the first thing that would have been taken care of. I think like you said it would be hard for a participant to be able to pull a show and this didn't happen. The biggest reason given is them not having the rights to show it. For example, should a release form not have been done etc. a person who claims to be filmed without consent etc. doesn't own the rights to the showing and any action taken would likely be in the civil courts - they would have to get an injunction to prevent it being shown again - and/or sue for compensation.
I narrow it down to between A4e, Government or DWP and A4e (joint). Channel 4 was obviously intimidated to take the show off air.
ATOMIC SUPLEX
Member Since: 1985 Post Count: 3
Well for a start you are sort of saying the same thing I was I think. It's not easy for someone to get a programme pulled even if they have not signed a form. I can however think of a couple of examples where this has happened.
The government can't really pull a programme without a very very very good reason and they would have to say why. I can't see how a4e could if c4 knew what sort of programme they were making (they would cover their backs).
The fact that studio lambert have an impressive back catalogue means nothing and the CVs of the producers probably means even less.
I have worked on 'prestigious' shows with 'big' producers and seen plenty of schoolboy fuck ups.
You have narrowed it down to what you want to think, there are still loads of reasons (including your own). Channel 4 are the least of the chicken shit tv companies and have a great legal team (that have created some rather inspired loopholes)
SpookyFrank
Don't swallow the cap
New Deal Scanda
New Member
I am thinking of setting up an "emergency" site and streaming it so those who are curious can view without downloading.
ymu
Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
C4 gets some public funding though, and has a public service remit. That's why I wondered.
Still not available.
New Deal Scanda
New Member
I see your point but then A4e etc. are contracted out to do services (of non-residential office hours accomodation) for the unemployed. They would be exempt it doesn't matter where the funding comes from - in order to be able to do an FoI request it has to eb a Government body/public sector.
Snippet: "The Provider shall at all times provide the Programme with due regard to the need for those in a public service environment to observe the highest standards of efficiency, economy, courtesy, consideration and hygiene."
Did I just read economy? Highest standards of economy... how can A4e be punished with a word like that in there. Thats a loophole for being under resourced.
ymu, I noticed the site isn't doing too badly in Google, its all good
and its all down to the supporters linking to the site.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
A friend of mine suggested that one thing that might have got to C4 would have been a credible claim to get them censured via OFCOM. I can't think of any complaint that would have stood up though.
Really this needs to be looked at by a journo with some contacts in C4 - if it was spiked, people will be pissed off enough to give details.
Really this needs to be looked at by a journo with some contacts in C4 - if it was spiked, people will be pissed off enough to give details.
AKA pseudonym
Well-Known Member
Urbanblues
Was that it, life?
On that programme one of the a4e advisors was filmed on a number of occasions trying to enlist people into joining an agency who would place them in a local cake factory. However, seems as though the agency and cake factory were notorious for taking people on for short periods of time, and even operating ‘0’-hours contracts.
One young guy, with a family, ended up taking up the agency offer – I think he just wanted these poverty pimps of his case. Interviewed later in the programme, this up to now happy-go-lucky guy was very angry that a4e was willing to fob him off with a ‘0’-hours contract.
Companies such as a4e have discovered El Dorado. In virtually any other walk of life they’d be sussed out for the cowboys they are and taken to task. Emma Harrison, what a gormless cunt, didn’t seem to understand any of what the interviewer was saying. When presented with some very stark realities she just grinned mumbling something about taking the issue up with a minister.
She’s robbing this country dry. Yet, I daresay before we know it she’ll be a government advisor on something or other.
One young guy, with a family, ended up taking up the agency offer – I think he just wanted these poverty pimps of his case. Interviewed later in the programme, this up to now happy-go-lucky guy was very angry that a4e was willing to fob him off with a ‘0’-hours contract.
Companies such as a4e have discovered El Dorado. In virtually any other walk of life they’d be sussed out for the cowboys they are and taken to task. Emma Harrison, what a gormless cunt, didn’t seem to understand any of what the interviewer was saying. When presented with some very stark realities she just grinned mumbling something about taking the issue up with a minister.
She’s robbing this country dry. Yet, I daresay before we know it she’ll be a government advisor on something or other.
Similar threads
