Subject: Re: 11 OCS
Posted By 'The Bean' on Wed Oct 18 22:48:26 BST 2000:

You mean that Channel 4 programme that's on in ten minutes (which can't be the 11OCS because it's five to eleven)? Okay then, I won't!

Subject: Re: 11 OCS
Posted By 'Anonymous' on Wed Oct 18 23:21:00 BST 2000:

Oh, I see they've resorted to Hitler jokes now. Cunts.

Subject: Re: 11 OCS
Posted By 'The Bean' on Wed Oct 18 23:26:12 BST 2000:

I've just rung the C4 Duty Office to say that the 11OCS is less funny than the last series, which wasn't really funny anyway. And the person taking the message laughed a lot.

Perhaps we should all ring & say similar things - 020 7396 4444.

Subject: Re: 11 OCS
Posted By 'A Bit of the 11 O'Clock Show' on Thu Oct 19 19:32:34 BST 2000:

Hey there's nothing wrong with a good Hitler joke. Yes, perhaps this wasn't one of them, but hey, I don't care because that joke (I'm assuming this is the joke you mean) was in a Peter Piper VT which he does himself and so your clever jibe of 'cunts' must not be aimed at me or any of the other writers for a change. Thank you.

Subject: TO: ABOT11OCS
Posted By 'Answer this, 11OCS' on Thu Oct 19 20:49:12 BST 2000:

Hi man (or woman).

I am sure I heard you say there would be no racism, homophobity, or nastiness in this new series (new writers and all) but in the 'Style W***ers' slot all 3 were shown in disgusting details. Unless; even if, this is an ironicity it is all still deeply degrading and I'd rather be warned before watching, thanks

How can *you* explain this?

Subject: Re: 11 OCS
Posted By 'boki' on Thu Oct 19 21:43:48 BST 2000:

>How can *you* explain this?

I'm not about to leap to anyone's defence regarding the show (especially as I've not seen enough of the new 11oCS to comment on it), but both ABot11oCS and Nunuf have already had to say a number of times on this forum that the material comes from different sources, and that they have nothing to do with the VT footage - indeed nunuf has been critical of it. If Style Wankers are established as aregular part of the show (and it appears that they are) and they turn in material that doesn't fit in with the new policy the producers may have no other option to use it and if it's that objectionable I'd imagine they'll look for a replacement act for future show.

This shows up a(nother) flaw in the show's format and of course is a legitimate complaint about the show, but to charge a link writer with the responsibility for it shows that either you've not been paying attention or you don't believe them. Which is it?

Now, if you're asking them to voice these concerns to their superiors, that would be more constructive...