The rule is: If you can spell faeces, you can smear it about. 
The British Comedy Awards 2010 Page 18
A very insightful and laudatory ruling, dear zooo!
*rubs runny bottom around the edges of the 'On The Buses DVDs' thread*
Quote: zooo @ January 25 2011, 1:34 PM GMTThe rule is: If you can spell faeces, you can smear it about.
With that logic, all sewage workers would have an A-level in English...
Do you have proof that they don't, HMMMM?
I doubt Charlie Brooker will be like that, he's more likely to stop doing things before they become rubbish.
Do you have proof that they don't, HMMMM?
The question is, what do you do with an A-Level in english?
Quote: Gerkuman @ January 25 2011, 3:12 PM GMTThe question is, what do you do with an A-Level in english?
Quote: Tim Walker @ January 25 2011, 1:33 PM GMT*briefly stops smearing own faeces on the walls of the thread*
Hold on, where in the BCG rules is that banned?
*returns to dirty protest, taking a big wee all over the 'Newsrevue again' thread*
Thanks Tim for support on this, however Zooo and I are best friends now.
I've finished with 'dirty protest'! Using wet-ones with aloe-vera.
Quote: Charlie Boy @ January 23 2011, 10:31 AM GMTGreat to read everyone's comments, but do these awards actually mean anything?
They mean that the recipients have the respect of their peers - much like almost every other award under the Sun.
Quote: Aaron @ January 26 2011, 2:40 AM GMTThey mean that the recipients have the respect of their peers - much like almost every other award under the Sun.
Aaron, is that your real photo? You look like a young Peter Frampton.
Quote: jhmagic1 @ January 23 2011, 8:53 PM GMTAm I right in thinking ITV2 shows weren't eligible for nomination?
No, anything is eligible.
Quote: Tony Cowards @ January 24 2011, 8:59 AM GMTSeeing as "QI" wasn't nominated for the panel show award I don't think it was a surprise not to see "Celebrity Juice" on there.
Actually, can anyone explain why there were only 3 nominations for most categories? It did seem to limit things a bit.
The process is briefly outlined on the BCA website (I get the impression from a few things I've picked up that it is slightly more complicated than this, but you get the point):
Firstly, the broadcasters submit lists of all eligible nominees which are placed on a secure on-line voting website where the 300+ members of The British Comedy Academy vote to create the shortlists. The top 5 in each category are then discussed and voted for by the British Comedy Awards Jury.
Whichever 3 or 4 got the most votes from the BCA Jury then get publicised as the official "nominees" - presumably just to save time when the various programmes are broadcast.
Quote: Tim Walker @ January 25 2011, 1:01 PM GMTFelt a little bit sorry for 'Rev' in the Best New Sitcom category. Especially as it actually was a new sitcom, as opposed to 'Miranda', which wasn't.
The eligibility for this year's awards covered Miranda Series 1, so it was.
Quote: dellas @ January 26 2011, 2:45 AM GMT
Well it's got a bit of an effect on it, to reduce the number of colours in the image, but yes it's a real photo of me.
Just catching up on this thread at last...
Speaking personally, I think overall the awards were pretty fair this year - very deserving winners overall. Now that broadcaster involvement/influence has been reduced in the voting process, there wasn't any massive 'WTF' moments like in previous years (Terry Wogan, Chris Tarrant anyone?)
Quote: Charlie Boy @ January 22 2011, 11:19 PM GMTHow the hell did Russell Brand win?
Although, er, yeah. As was explained on the E4 thing after, that award was not voted on by the jury but picked direct by the producers.
A cynical person might suggest that it was partly done to try and get the awards in the papers. That said, his acceptance speech was great I thought, lots of name-checking to show he's still paying attention despite being in Hollywood.
And he took the piss out of Brooker's hair, which is the most important thing.
Quote: Tim Walker @ January 25 2011, 1:01 PM GMTFelt a little bit sorry for 'Rev' in the Best New Sitcom category. Especially as it actually was a new sitcom, as opposed to 'Miranda', which wasn't.
Rev was excellent. I still smile thinking about the archdeacon. As Aaron says, slightly confusingly, it was Series 1 of Miranda that was up for nomination... and obviously that did rather well indeed too. Tough call.
Quote: Tony Cowards @ January 24 2011, 8:59 AM GMTActually, can anyone explain why there were only 3 nominations for most categories? It did seem to limit things a bit.
Just to add to what Aaron says - the Academy (previous winners and people like that) vote to form long lists, and the jury vote using this list. The three with the most votes end up on the published shortlist.
As others say, I'm presuming there can only be three because of time constraints (even with two hours the show was running behind by the end), and physical space at the awards (another two in each category could have meant another 20 tables needed!)
I think the above also explains why there were four nominated in the male actor category. That's been commented on a lot but not explained. I think it must be because there was a draw on the number of votes.
All that said, I agree, it would have been great to have seen more clips and shows and people on the telly!
Quote: Charlie Boy @ January 23 2011, 10:31 AM GMTGreat to read everyone's comments, but do these awards actually mean anything?
It's like any awards really... the main thing is a nice warm glow for 'winning'. No doubt it's a nice shot of publicity for all the nominees, and particularly the winners. Miranda Hart has been all over the papers since she won... I imagine a fair number of people will have bought the show on DVD off the back of all that press.
I didn't see it, but I believe Miranda won best new sitcom. Eh? On what basis did they say it had won, just popularity?
It beat Rev, an infinitely better made show, and a subject that was long overdue a sitcom, so I assume they mentioned that writing, acting, originality of material and quality of production was not part of the criteria this year?
It's a bit of sham isn't it? Miranda won because of the personality of its star, even though she won a separate award for this, the people's choice. This should have been enough!
Unfortunately, the judges have let themselves be carried on one of these waves of adoration for a star, that our luvvified arts media have sadly become addicted to. It has unbalanced the awards process, dented the credibility of the judges and renders it pointless to show real craft or originality when apparently, better sitcoms just need a big bubbly personality, preferably female, and a lot of blatant, unoriginal jokes, all wrapped up with an audience pleasing feel good factor, whilst looking unauthentic, totally unrealistic and childish.
I give up with our TV awards, they are rarely credible these days.
She's probably Jewish as well, eh, Alfred?