It’s the sheer arrogance of the BBC as much as its institutionalised bias that gets me. Take its’ reaction to the increasing rejection of the entirely politicised Eurovision Song contest by the British public. Now then, we all know that the Eurovision is a burlesque – always has been. But since the entry of the eastern European countries, “old Europe” has been essentially sidelined as the political bloc votes prevail and the UK has now no chance of winning, so why should we pay to go through this annual charade? Well the BBC has made is clear that it WILL continue to spend OUR money on this EU-driven enterprise and to hell with what the public thinks. The BBC is pandering to the EU and that is why it insists on funnelling money on this folly.

Bookmark the permalink.

103 Responses to THE SHOW MUST GO ON.

  1. waterloo says:


    I don’t think you’re right here: the Eurovision song contest isn’t ‘EU driven’ so far as I can see. It’s the child of the EBU, formed in Britain in the 1950s and based in (non-EU) Switzerland. Many of the participants (Russia, Israel, Norway, Switzerland, Serbia, Croatia etc ) are not EU states.

    As for the BBC, wasn’t it beeboid Terry Wogan who set the current withdrawal hare running?


  2. sutekh says:


    You were being too kind in refering to it as a ‘folly’. My own objections lie not with any perceived bias on the part of the Beeb or the laughably predictable voting responses of certain participating countries.

    No, seeing as I’m unable to view this charade in the wanky ‘post-modern ironic’ light that we’re all supposed to view much ‘culture’ these days, I simply see it as an irrelevant pile of steaming shite (but wasn’t it always?).

    For this alone it should flushed down the khazi of history, imo.


  3. Gibby Haynes says:

    Wait, the BBC with their extorted telly tax revenue actually fund the Eurovision Song Contest? I was deeply offended (not offended enough to take to the streets, burn American, Israeli or British flags, burn cars, embassies, murder the occasional nun and threaten genocide against everyone like the People of No Discernible Religious Affiliation; I usually just quietly curse, change the channel or do something else) by the fact that they even broadcast it. I assumed it was because the BBC is such a worthless organisation that even the Eurovison song contest was better than dead air.


  4. Joel says:

    Its an institution, nothing to do with the EU, 10 million people watched it, of course there’s political voting always has been, part and parcel of the show.

    10 million, is 1 in 6 in the UK. Theres been a big reaction this year because the voting has got worse because of the amount of new eastern European entrants. Austria and Italy have pulled out, I’m sure the BBC is taking it all into consideration.

    ‘to hell with what the public thinks’- what you mean by this is ‘to hell with what I think’. You dont speak for the public. Unless your talking about the 1,400 who voted for you. If the Beeb dropped Eurovision dont you think it would de beluged by complaints from members of that same public?


  5. Jack Bauer says:

    It’s almost as if the BBC is like a puppet on a string. Maybe they’ll meet their waterloo.


  6. Chuffer says:

    A rant’n’rave too far on this one, DV!
    Check out the EBU vs. the EU.

    (And check out “its”, “it’s” and “its'” as well!)


  7. GCooper says:

    If Joel could momentarily depart from his BBC PR dept. script, perhaps he would like to address the alleged 40% funding of this charade?

    Incidentally the ‘we got a huge audience’ line is a spurious argument. The BBC isn’t supposed to be about ratings – that’s one of the excuses for the poll tax it extorts.


  8. haddock says:

    It is a gay icon, of course the Beeb will ensure that it survives.


  9. libertus says:

    Haddock: very true. The programme is of no musical merit at all but for some reason it is, I have discovered, of huge interest to homosexual men, up there with Cher, Kylie, Judy Garland etc. They blog about it. It must be the sheer campness of it all, so yes, the BBC will continue to spend your money on it.


  10. Joel says:

    Yes indeedy, you’ve cut through the PR script and got to the real reaso:…it’s the gay mafia. I had no idea 1 in 6 of the population was gay, I guess the BBC has been underepresenting them after all.

    My point about the number of people watching, is not about ratings. Obviously a lot of people understandably think it’s crap, many others watch it. So its not about, as the blog suggests, the BBC’s arrogance by ignoring the customers, quite a lot of them, want to watch it!

    For what its worth, I thought the Bosnia-Herzigova entry was excelllent. The Israelis should have won in my opinion. You can still listen here:


  11. Anonymous says:

    libertus | 27.05.08 – 11:31 am

    Gosh, you’re right.

    It was ten years ago tonight that I actually attended the Eurovision Song Contest when it was held in Birmingham. I was sitting next to Stephen Twigg, who nearly exploded when the Israeli transsexual singer, Dana International (pic), won. Hilarious.


  12. Nearly Oxfordian says:

    Quite right, DV.

    Joel is talking through the back of his neck, for all the reasons expounded above.


  13. Sue says:

    Cut out the singing. Just have the voting.


  14. Benny says:

    The Eurovision song contest serves a useful purpose: everytime I watch it, I want Britian out of the EU even more than before. So it is useful in making people see Europe as being corrupt and untrustworthy. All those ungrateful Eastern Europeans that are happy to come over here and take our money but won’t vote for us, only looking out for their own self interest, etc…

    If the BBC were to ditch Eurovision, it would be because of this reason.


  15. Dr R says:

    Actually I think the Eurovision is precisely (and possibly the only) sort of programe the dumbed-down, creatively pisspoor, bigotted BBC should produce.

    A perfect match.


  16. Hillhunt says:

    Mr Vance:

    On the ball as ever. £173k for three hours’ entertainment watched by almost ten million people? How raw a deal is that?

    Oooh…not very raw at all. The standard price for a single hour’s entertainment on lean, mean, ad-funded Channel 4 is £250,000. On ITV it’s more.

    Does this mean that the BBC is actually paying less to entertain a huge audience than its commercial rivals would pay? Why, yes. Sounds like a good news story about the BBC, then…


  17. Joel says:

    Thats a great argument against immigration…they don’t vote for us at Eurovision.

    Interestingly though, Poland joined the UK in last place, perhaps someone recalls whether or they voted for us?

    Funnily enough the UK almost always get votes from Ireland. Perhaps DV will suggest this is because the BBC has brainwashed them into believing they’re part of the UK?


  18. Millie Tant says:

    Chuffer: er…I did and two of those are…um…the SAME!

    For clarification, if anyone cares:

    “it’s” with an apostrophe ALWAYS means “it is”.

    “its” (possessive), is ALWAYS without an apostrophe.

    “It’s in its element.”

    That’s all there is to it.

    Joel: Do you work for the BBC?

    “Your” is the possessive.

    “You’re” is a contraction of “you are”

    “Don’t” is a contraction and requires ‘. There is no word “dont”.

    Yours (not “yours'” or “your’s”),


    Back on topic, there is an argument going on in one of the big online entertainment discussion groups about possible BBC bias in the selection process for the UK’s Eurovision singer/song.

    From what they say, the BBC appoints some Z-list “celebs” and BBC hangers-on to a panel – one name mentioned was John Barrowman – to select the singer/ song from a number (of usually also Z-list celebs and hangers-on) who sing before the panel.

    According to what is being said online, the BBC, through its employee, Terry Wogan, overrode the selection panel’s choice to the extent that he selected one act that the panel didn’t and put it through, with the panel’s other selections, for the public vote. This singer happened to be a black ex-binman who appeared on ITV’s X-Factor singing contest. This act then became the UK’s entry to the Eurovision, following the public vote.

    Having looked it up on Youtube, I find it an awful song and a very unappealing performance. However, I don’t know what the other candidates in the UK selection round were like. Some say there were better acts.

    The Barrowman mentioned is a BBC favourite, currently appearing on another BBC TV show to select singers for the stage show “Oliver!” I think he is some sort of minor TV and stage actor and singer.


  19. BaggieJonathan says:

    OK the eurovision song contest is not actually EU.

    It is still woeful.

    It is still fixed.

    It is still funded by the BBC as the single largest contributor.

    When we got nul points the blag was it was down to Iraq.

    But western countries have been politically voted out of the contest despite contributing the lions share of the monies for several years now.

    Italy and Austria are boycotting, expect other western nations to follow suit.

    So we will have to foot even more of the bill!

    Last year many were so disenchanted with eurovision they threatened not to watch it again.

    Mark my words the viewing figures for next year will show a disastrous decline on a par with the dramatic drop in the viewing figures we will see for Euro 2008 that the BBC and ITV are still insisting on giving wall to wall coverage despite no UK teams being in it

    At least in the latters case ITV will be punished commercially for their decision to show so much Euro 2008, the BBC will just laugh it off and carry on anyway…


  20. BaggieJonathan says:

    Point of information:

    This years eurovision votes for the UK came from just two countries – San Marino and Ireland.


  21. libertus says:

    Hillhunt gets it wrong again.

    Laying aside the question whether Eurovision is ‘entertainment’, the cost to viewers is as follows:

    1. Channel 4: Nil
    2. ITV: Nil
    3. BBC: £173k (or £3bn pa)

    Hillhunt: you get ‘Nulle points’ again.


  22. deegee says:

    If the BBC should broadcast music (another question in itself) then it should broadcast the Eurovision song contest. If it should broadcast sport then it should broadcast the Olympics.

    Yes, they are both kitsch on a world stage; nationalist not to say jingoist; prone to scandal and excess; a waste of money on frivolity and lowest common denominator. The best don’talways win or even compete. They are also lots of fun.

    Everything you say might be true but the world would be a little duller without a few hours – OK a week of the Eurovision Song Contest. Douze points for Liechtenstein – whatever :+:


  23. Nearly Oxfordian says:

    And why should we pay 40% of it, pray, given that this country’s population does not make up 40% of the total?
    I call it corruption and theft. Sue me, BBC.


  24. David Vance says:

    Here’s a goog idea. Why not let BBC viewers VOTE on whether the BBC spends OUR money on the Eurovision? The Song contest is a farce, as I make clear in my initial remarks but not one I believe we, the license-payer should be making any contribution towards – not a penny to be precise. I have no issue with people having a laugh at it, that’s fine – it’s the use of money to support it that bothers me. Plus the faux “We’re all Europeans now” crap that it exudes. Why is the BBC so in hoc to it – well, maybe Haddock hits the pink nail on the head as evidenced by the speculation that if Wogan quits, Graham Norton gets the gig. Two MORE hours of Norton, c’mon?


  25. sutekh says:

    Haddock: very true. The programme is of no musical merit at all but for some reason it is, I have discovered, of huge interest to homosexual men, up there with Cher, Kylie, Judy Garland etc. They blog about it. It must be the sheer campness of it all, so yes, the BBC will continue to spend your money on it.
    Of course they will. The fact that it is entirely disassociated from anything that is happening with UK music at the moment is beyond them.

    But hasn’t it always been? In addition, it now has more to do with those showbizzy ‘reality ‘shows (“hey, why don’t we get John Barrowman on, he’s rarely on tv these days”) like “I’d Do Anything” than anything you’d see on “Later With Jools Holland” or any other music show.


  26. sutekh says:

    Yes, and the buggers postponed Doctor Who last weekend to make room for it…


  27. moonbat nibbler says:

    hillhunt sez:
    “£173k for three hours’ entertainment watched by almost ten million people? How raw a deal is that?”

    £173K for the rights to ‘entertain’.

    How many millions for Wogan and his drinks bill, Barrowman and his hair, organising the UK entry, wages of the beeboids and broadcast costs?

    7.1m people watched, down from 8.77m last year and a reduction of 50% compared to 2006 – after this years’ debacle what will the numbers be next year?


  28. archroy says:

    I suppose Poland coming equal last with Britain and Germany must mean that they’re now accepted as a Western European country!


  29. Joel says:

    I’ve read some ridiculous statements on this blog, but the idea that the BBC shows the Eurovision because its enjoyed by gays, and the Beeb is full of gays really takes the biscuit.


  30. Chuffer says:

    Millie Tant

    Look a bit closer…


  31. adam says:

    of course its to do with the EU

    Its designed to bring ‘europeans’ together, give them a common culture.
    Just like the champions league and other pan european events.

    If that wasnt why it was set up (im sure it is as it is too naff exist for any other purpose) then its how the politicos view it now


  32. jason says:

    Joel –

    What is so ridiculous about that idea? The BBC IS full of gays, and gays DO love the Eurovision song contest.

    I don’t know ANYONE – not ONE person, who has watched this farce since the early 80’s. Mind you, I don’t know any gays.


  33. Hillhunt says:

    Snr Ian Figures:

    I call it corruption and theft. Sue me, BBC.

    You’re just confusing us now. Are you called Ian… or Sue?



  34. Nearly Oxfordian says:

    Of course it’s to do with bringing Europeans together. I can still remember the early days of the EBT, or whatever it’s called, and it’s sickeningly naive enthusiasm for European ‘togetherness’.


  35. Nearly Oxfordian says:

    Oh god, another dumb troll is back.


  36. Joel says:

    Your logic is flawless Jason.

    As for comments about the EU, the Eurovision has been shown in the UK for over 50 years.


  37. Anonymous says:

    save a polar bear and get rid of the eurovision at the same time, club a beeboid


  38. GCooper says:

    Joel writes: “As for comments about the EU, the Eurovision has been shown in the UK for over 50 years.”

    So what? The development of both was driven by the same post-war, integrationist ‘never again’ dreamers.

    Either you are unaware of this, which is remarkably ignorant, or you know it perfectly well and are being disingenuous.

    I note you have tried to avoid addressing the 40% cost borne by UK poll tax payers.


  39. Peter says:

    “It’s designed to bring ‘europeans’ together, give them a common culture.”

    You can’t get much more common than the EuroFriction Song Contest.

    Be of good cheer,nobody in the music industry takes the EuroFriction seriously,except if there is a butty to be made from the winner.
    Major songwriters and acts will have nothing to do with this tacky farce.Major players prefer to keep making money in the real world,and that is the real rub,the EuroFriction has to be subsidised,because no one will pay to watch it.Ideal BBC country.


  40. Martin says:

    The problem is that Eurovision has many eastern european countries that would like to be part of the greater EU state.

    Even the French and Germans won’t be able to rig the voting if all these failed countries join.

    As for the BBC. If they put the test card on for 3 hours on a Saturday night, they’d get 9 million viewers.

    If the BBC wants to go after ratings, then offer pay for view.

    The BBC just represents all that is wrong with Socialism.

    Socialists like high tax high spending, they ignore the opinions of those that pay for it all and their answer to a shortage of cash is to simply demand more money.

    The BBC like McLiebour is heading for a big crash.


  41. Mugwump says:

    This whole Eurovision discussion reminds me yet again why I am proud to be an American.


  42. Peter says:

    “As for comments about the EU, the Eurovision has been shown in the UK for over 50 years.”

    “In 1957, the Treaty of Rome creates the European Economic Community (EEC), or ‘Common Market’.”

    The EU was a solution to the conflict of 1914-18.You are a bit behind the curve Joel.


  43. Jonathan M. Scott says:

    Anything European will be worshipped by the fools at the BBC.

    Mind you, the UK entry was a bit of a joke.

    And why did they stop Dustin the Turkey from going through to the final? He could have won.


  44. Martin says:

    I like the way Hillhunt says £178,000 isn’t a lot of money.

    Well I guess for a Beeboid it probably isn’t. After all some smack, some champers and a few rent boys doesn’t come cheap these days does it?


  45. Hillhunt says:


    I like the way Hillhunt says £178,000 isn’t a lot of money.

    For three hours of popular TV entertainment, it is remarkably cheap, yes. The standard guide price quoted by Channel 4 is £250,000 per hour, rising higher depending on the ambitions of the programme.

    After all some smack, some champers and a few rent boys doesn’t come cheap these days does it?

    Wouldn’t know Martin. Just don’t try out any of your fantasies in Belgrade. They take a robust view of sexual experimentation and drug trafficking.


  46. Nearly Oxfordian says:

    -As for comments about the EU, the Eurovision has been shown in the UK for over 50 years –

    and your point is? Any idea when the EEC was founded?


  47. Nearly Oxfordian says:

    Why, hillhunt, I didn’t realise you get Internet access as an inmate in a Serbian prison: what is it like?


  48. Albert the Cat says:

    Are some of the contributors to this forum working for al-Beeb?


  49. Peter says:

    “I like the way Hillhunt says £178,000 isn’t a lot of money.

    For three hours of popular TV entertainment, it is remarkably cheap, yes. ”

    Does that include the staff, or do they go under ongoing costs?


  50. Millie Tant says:

    Chuffer: Oops! Sorry. I need an eye test, obviously.