NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=entertainmentNews&storyID=6319141
This seems like quite a racy show. Now I don't mind if any station defies convention, as it is the only way we don't end up with crappy shows like "Three's Company". But there is a fine line between harmless satire, and an outlike assault on morality. Popetown crossed that line.

Meh, pope insults are getting old. We need to go straight for the source and rip on that jesus fellow some more :p

Who the hell insults The Pope? The Pope rocks.

The Pope rocks! And so does Three's Company!

That is too true my man.

The Pope rocks! And so does Three's Company!
Three's Company sucked. I'm surprised they didn't pull it off the air earlier than they did. Then again, cable TV barely existed back then.

I wish catholics - in fact, christians in general - would just sit down and shut up. If they get offended by something, they could just not watch it. But oh no, they have to go spoil it for everyone else.

Ah well, I expect the show was crap anyway.

I'm a Catholic and i want to see it!

I wish catholics - in fact, christians in general - would just sit down and shut up. If they get offended by something, they could just not watch it. But oh no, they have to go spoil it for everyone else.

Ah well, I expect the show was crap anyway.
Well, this was public TV. British Catholics probably feel appalled that their tax dollars are used to defame the pope. As it is public, however, it will make the British government look bad in the eyes of the pope, the world's single most powerful moral authority. No one can afford to alienate the Vatican today.

I'm a Catholic and i want to see it!
I wouldn't mind if there was a show that poked fun at the Pope. After all, problems do exist with him. But isn't bouncing on a pogo stick a bit extreme?

Well, this was public TV. British Catholics probably feel appalled that their tax dollars are used to defame the pope. As it is public, however, it will make the British government look bad in the eyes of the pope, the world's single most powerful moral authority. No one can afford to alienate the Vatican today.

Bah! In Britain, alienating the vatican is part of our history! We snubbed the catholic church when it was at its most powerful. We even smashed up their monasteries and stole their precious things!

Anyway, I'm appalled that my tax pounds are used to make crap like Eastenders, but the BBC isn't dancing to my tune.

Well, this was public TV. British Catholics probably feel appalled that their tax dollars are used to defame the pope. As it is public, however, it will make the British government look bad in the eyes of the pope, the world's single most powerful moral authority. No one can afford to alienate the Vatican today.
Actually I think the opposite of that is true, The Vatican is losing more and more power every day.

Bah! In Britain, alienating the vatican is part of our history! We snubbed the catholic church when it was at its most powerful. We even smashed up their monasteries and stole their precious things!

Anyway, I'm appalled that my tax pounds are used to make crap like Eastenders, but the BBC isn't dancing to my tune.
Well, tax dollars is just a generic term I use. My bad.
Anyhow, to be honest, I don't like the BBC, or any public television. It isn't because of what it airs, but who supports it. In the free market, if truely offensive content got on the air, the show would be pulled off before anyone could scream. That's not so, when public broadcasting has an endless flow of tax money to flow into it.
And I do realize that Vatican bashing is a part of British history, but Britain is far past those days. Besides, Britain would still be Catholic if Henry VIII wasn't a pedophile.

But isn't bouncing on a pogo stick a bit extreme?

Yes, God Forbid that the pope should ever partake of such a deviant activity.

"Despite all of the creative energy that has gone into this project and the best efforts of everyone involved, the comic impact of the delivered series does not outweigh the potential offence it will cause."

Translation: It's not funny enough to be worth the hassle.

Actually I think the opposite of that is true, The Vatican is losing more and more power every day.
I believe that, too. However, the Pope still commands significant moral authority, and great influence over non-Catholics. The current pope probably has done more to reach out to Muslims than any government, if only because of his substantially long reign. Make him unhappy, and that is a big minus on anyone's record. Remember, Stalin asked how many divisions the pope had. The pope, especially John Paul II, doesn't need them for influence.

Besides, Britain would still be Catholic if Henry VIII wasn't a pedophile.

I don't think it was considered particularly abnormal in those days, considering girls could marry at 12.

Anyway, I was about to say 'Don't knock Henry VIII', but then I decided that I couldn't care less if he bounced around on a pogo-stick for my entertainment.

I don't think it was considered particularly abnormal in those days, considering girls could marry at 12.
No, not in those days. But divorce wasn't exactly acceptable then.
Anyway, I was about to say 'Don't knock Henry VIII', but then I decided that I couldn't care less if he bounced around on a pogo-stick for my entertainment.
But it wouldn't offend about 5 million taxpayers that are both British and Catholic, unless the Archbishop of Canterberry thinks Henry VIII is the second coming of Jesus. Currently, he doesn't.

But it wouldn't offend about 5 million taxpayers that are both British and Catholic, unless the Archbishop of Canterberry thinks Henry VIII is the second coming of Jesus. Currently, he doesn't.

I very much doubt that all 5 million of them are offended. In fact, I expect the figure is less than 5,000. My family is catholic (and I mean the type that goes to church every week and takes part in other church activities), and I'm pretty sure they'd find the idea of the pope on a pogo-stick hilarious. The kind of people who are honestly truly offended by something so inane are in a much smaller minority than many other groups that are mercilessly ridiculed by television.

I very much doubt that all 5 million of them are offended. In fact, I expect the figure is less than 5,000. My family is catholic (and I mean the type that goes to church every week and takes part in other church activities), and I'm pretty sure they'd find the idea of the pope on a pogo-stick hilarious. The kind of people who are honestly truly offended by something so inane are in a much smaller minority than many other groups that are mercilessly ridiculed by television.
Just ask them. Even if they find it funny, they'll certainly find it a bit offensive. Not that I have a problem with a pope on a pogo stick, but it portrays the Vatican as something that it isn't: a very old multinational firm.

Just ask them. Even if they find it funny, they'll certainly find it a bit offensive.

My family? No. Most catholics? I'd still say no. I went to catholic school and all that, went to church for years too, met loads of catholic families, and to be honest, half of them are only nominally catholic, and most of the remainder don't actually take the pope seriously.

Not that I have a problem with a pope on a pogo stick, but it portrays the Vatican as something that it isn't: a very old multinational firm.

It all depends if it is trying to sell that view of the Vatican as fact. Judging by the pope on a pogo stick, it sounds unlikely that it is trying to make a serious stance on anything.

It all depends if it is trying to sell that view of the Vatican as fact. Judging by the pope on a pogo stick, it sounds unlikely that it is trying to make a serious stance on anything.
Even so, it is far more disturbing that it appears on a public network. Quite a few people can equate what the BBC shows to what the British government endorses. Even if they offer disclaimers that they don't endorse these positions, why divert tax revenue to these shows?
As for your edit, I find that to be sad. Being Catholic, I agree with you that the pope isn't infalliable, as he is just a man. However, he is still our spiritual leader, and must be reverred.
Nominal Catholics, btw, exist on this side of the pond. They go to church every Sunday not because of any spiritual duty, but because it is a great oppritunity to go to breakfast with friends, afterwards. It's sad, but at least it seems to have one bright spot: if these nominal Catholics ever decide to be fully Catholic or not Catholic at all, then we'd never have this priest shortage. But unfortunatly, that isn't the case.

Even so, it is far more disturbing that it appears on a public network. Quite a few people can equate what the BBC shows to what the British government endorses. Even if they offer disclaimers that they don't endorse these positions, why divert tax revenue to these shows?

Not everybody is going to like every show. I thoroughly despise Eastenders, but that doesn't stop them spending my license fee on it.

Also, the BBC is supposed to be unbiased. It's bad enough that the government occasionally censors stuff like "Have I got news for you". I'm pretty sure that has contained some rather irreverent mockery of the vatican over the years.

Not everybody is going to like every show. I thoroughly despise Eastenders, but that doesn't stop them spending my license fee on it.

Also, the BBC is supposed to be unbiased. It's bad enough that the government occasionally censors stuff like "Have I got news for you". I'm pretty sure that has contained some rather irreverent mockery of the vatican over the years.
That's why, as I said, that the BBC needs to be privatized. If the government keeps a station, it should be solely for government information, like laws, or Parliment procedings. It shouldn't have news shows and sitcoms and such. Over here, we have Public Broadcasting System, PBS, and it's radio counterpart, National Public Radio. While they should be privatized, I understand that they aren't as powerful here as the BBC is there. Anyhow, the only good shows PBS has are a few occaisonal operas, Sesame Street, and a British import, Telitubbies.

Wow, and I was expecting this show to be about the pope molesting altar boys, over the controversy it's apparently raised.

A pogo stick?

I've seen worse.

That's why, as I said, that the BBC needs to be privatized.

No way! If the BBC gets privatised, it'll end up just another commercial-blighted stream of insipid game shows and reality TV. I'm prepared to put up with government manipulation, for occasional gems like Blackadder and Red Dwarf, that other channels really don't seem capable of producing.

No way! If the BBC gets privatised, it'll end up just another commercial-blighted stream of insipid game shows and reality TV. I'm prepared to put up with government manipulation, for occasional gems like Blackadder and Red Dwarf, that other channels really don't seem capable of producing.
Relax. Cable and sattelite TV provide so many choices that a few stations are never capable of a monopoly. In the US about thirty years ago, there were only four channels: the big networks, and PBS. Today, there are litterally hundreds of smaller stations. If the BBC were to be privatized, cable and sattelite would be the market's way of checking and balancing it. They currently don't have the power to, as the BBC recieves funding no matter what.

Relax. Cable and sattelite TV provide so many choices that a few stations are never capable of a monopoly. In the US about thirty years ago, there were only four channels: the big networks, and PBS. Today, there are litterally hundreds of smaller stations. If the BBC were to be privatized, cable and sattelite would be the market's way of checking and balancing it. They currently don't have the power to, as the BBC recieves funding no matter what.

The only decent stuff on Satellite and Cable is bought off the BBC anyway. In fact, the only non-BBC sitcoms I can recall ever seeing that were any good, were the Simpsons and Father Ted, and I suppose Futurama was okay. Add to that, David Attenborough is a TV god, and I'd hate to see his programs fall by the wayside as a newly privatised BBC is forced to cater to the lowest common denominator.

Then again, even the BBC is losing its touch these days. Or am I just reminiscing for the era of Red Dwarf, Blackadder, the Young Ones, and all?

Edit: It just occurs to me that League of Gentlemen was recent, and pretty damn good.

1) Government-run television programming is good. Its more culturally significant and doesn't shrink the brain like the sludge-pump we see on privately-owned channels. Of course you will not like every program they show so don't sweat it. I get a good dose of American and Canadian channels and there is a significant difference in quality in PBS and CBC programming compared to the other channels who shit out 12 sitcoms a year I never watch and get cancelled after 3 episodes.

2) I'm Catholic. The Pope on a pogo stick is funny. The hipster Pope from Spitting Image who wore hightops (Yo, yo, yo! JP in the house!) is funny. Father Ted was unbelievably fucking funny. 'Nuff Said.

I always wanted a pope clock like the one from Father Ted, but I never found one.

Drink! Fek! Arse! Girls!

I just wanted to stick my oar in and say the BBC is NOT government controlled, the only thing the government does is make it illegal to not pay your TV License, it does not recieve "tax revenues" as the tv license pays for it and it goes directly to the BBC the government doesnt see any of it.

Oh and to prove the BBC isnt controlled by the government, does anyone here remember the uproar about Mr Kelly killing himself?

Even so, it is far more disturbing that it appears on a public network. Quite a few people can equate what the BBC shows to what the British government endorses.

I very much doubt than many people in Britain hold that opinion, or any other (at very least northern) Europeans about their public service broadcasters. I certainly don't see SVT and SR (our equivalants of the BBC) as the mouthpieces of the Swedish government. Just look at the whole fuss the British government made about some of the BBC's reporting about the Irak war which disproves any notion that the BBC was blindly broadcasting the British government's view.
I think sometimes non-Europeans confuse European public service broadcasting with "state" television, i.e. tv that really is state-controlled, of the type that broadcasts in say Russia, N.Korea and China (and these days sadly to a certain extent in Italy since Berlusconi!).
In fact, it is often the advantage of public service broadcasters that they can make controversial or less audience generating programmes because they don't have to rely on the goodwill/attracting commercial advertisers to generate their income.

Well, the BBC did seem to be sucking up to the government in teh wake of Hutton, but that was only the directorship, the grasss roots BBC looks very independant indeed.


Oh, and Spaced was a true gem that was on C4 rather than the BBC.
Fecking Ejits.

Father Ted was funny, some of those newer British comedies have gone downhill.

The only decent stuff on Satellite and Cable is bought off the BBC anyway. In fact, the only non-BBC sitcoms I can recall ever seeing that were any good, were the Simpsons and Father Ted, and I suppose Futurama was okay. Add to that, David Attenborough is a TV god, and I'd hate to see his programs fall by the wayside as a newly privatised BBC is forced to cater to the lowest common denominator.

Then again, even the BBC is losing its touch these days. Or am I just reminiscing for the era of Red Dwarf, Blackadder, the Young Ones, and all?

Edit: It just occurs to me that League of Gentlemen was recent, and pretty damn good.
Well then, that means some other channel will take over this sitcom, or if they aren't good, they wither away. Here in the US, I cannot name the many shows that lasted just four weeks before pulled off the air. I remember one show before my time, Sanford & Son, was a midseason replacement.

I very much doubt than many people in Britain hold that opinion, or any other (at very least northern) Europeans about their public service broadcasters. I certainly don't see SVT and SR (our equivalants of the BBC) as the mouthpieces of the Swedish government. Just look at the whole fuss the British government made about some of the BBC's reporting about the Irak war which disproves any notion that the BBC was blindly broadcasting the British government's view.
I think sometimes non-Europeans confuse European public service broadcasting with "state" television, i.e. tv that really is state-controlled, of the type that broadcasts in say Russia, N.Korea and China (and these days sadly to a certain extent in Italy since Berlusconi!).
In fact, it is often the advantage of public service broadcasters that they can make controversial or less audience generating programmes because they don't have to rely on the goodwill/attracting commercial advertisers to generate their income.
I don't see that as a merit about public broadcasting. If a contraversial show is to be shown, it can be shown on smaller channels. Perhaps it may grow. The British clone Queer Eye for the Straight Guy got started on such a channel, before moving to NBC. There are just so many choices without public broadcasting, that it is hard not to find something an audience is receptive to. Even if you find two TV programs on at the same time, technologies like TiVo are eliminating the channel flipping ordeal by recording them both.

I don't see that as a merit about public broadcasting. If a contraversial show is to be shown, it can be shown on smaller channels.

Except that smaller channels don't have the budget to make anything half decent. The advantage of the BBC is that it can afford to make decent programming to cater to different minority interest groups without fear of losing profit. So, eventually, everyone gets what they want. And anyway, if people want to watch mindless drivel like Big Brother, about 90% of satellite and cable channels are loaded with that sort of audience gathering gibberish.

Except that smaller channels don't have the budget to make anything half decent. The advantage of the BBC is that it can afford to make decent programming to cater to different minority interest groups without fear of losing profit. So, eventually, everyone gets what they want. And anyway, if people want to watch mindless drivel like Big Brother, about 90% of satellite and cable channels are loaded with that sort of audience gathering gibberish.
Then have a talk with my brother. He loves Big Brother.
Anyhow, you would be pretty surprised. HBO is only considered to be a larger channel because it was the second cable channel (C-SPAN was the first). But they've moved beyond just showing movies, and had hit shows like Sex and the City, or the Sopranos. Countless other channels have alll sorts of programs. But the three networks themselves aren't really as bad as commercialized as some like to think. In fact, ABC just produced the first show since the fifties where advertizers write the screenplay. It represents a decline, I know, but hey, they haven't tried a thing like that in eons.

Then have a talk with my brother. He loves Big Brother.

I didn't say it wasn't popular. Quite the opposite in fact. But it's still drivel. There really is nothing witty or intellectually inspiring about it at all, because most people would rather just sit there like vegetables killing brain cells. That's why we need the BBC, so that those of us who are able to appreciate decent programming, aren't forced to make do with 100 channels of repetitive, mundane crap.

I didn't say it wasn't popular. Quite the opposite in fact. But it's still drivel. There really is nothing witty or intellectually inspiring about it at all, because most people would rather just sit there like vegetables killing brain cells. That's why we need the BBC, so that those of us who are able to appreciate decent programming, aren't forced to make do with 100 channels of repetitive, mundane crap.
I wasn't commenting on its popularity, just that my brother likes that reality crap. Anyhow, it's more than that. Sattelite or cable TV is not just linked to channels like this, but ones that are actually tailored to special audiences, one of the earliest being the Discovery Channel. Whatever people are willing to watch, some TV station will show it.

Sattelite or cable TV is not just linked to channels like this, but ones that are actually tailored to special audiences, one of the earliest being the Discovery Channel.

I had the discovery channel for about two years, but they rarely showed anyhting interesting. It was nothing but forensics and criminal investigation type crap, because that's what would get the audiences in. There's a lowest common denominator even among documentaries, and the discovery channel has found it.

Same for the History channel, or should I say, 'the Hitler Channel', since they seem convinced that world war II was the only piece of history worth telling us about. Repeatedly. Probably because its cheaper to use the vast wealth of WWII footage, than stage reconstructions and such of, say, the Wars of the Roses. UK History is slightly better, but even they show a ridiculous amount of WWII footage.

I don't believe the Pope is what he use to be. The Catholic church use to be the richest institution in the world.. not so any more and mostly because of paying off all the children they molested.

I had the discovery channel for about two years, but they rarely showed anyhting interesting. It was nothing but forensics and criminal investigation type crap, because that's what would get the audiences in. There's a lowest common denominator even among documentaries, and the discovery channel has found it.

Same for the History channel, or should I say, 'the Hitler Channel', since they seem convinced that world war II was the only piece of history worth telling us about. Repeatedly. Probably because its cheaper to use the vast wealth of WWII footage, than stage reconstructions and such of, say, the Wars of the Roses. UK History is slightly better, but even they show a ridiculous amount of WWII footage.
To be honest, I rarely watch TV. Just the news every now and then. So really, I don't know. But I am staunchely convinced that public television doesn't follow a model of liberal economics, and has a way of hogging TV space. Public channels shouldn't exist at all.

To be honest, I rarely watch TV. Just the news every now and then. So really, I don't know. But I am staunchely convinced that public television doesn't follow a model of liberal economics, and has a way of hogging TV space. Public channels shouldn't exist at all.

Well, if you're satisfied with the airwaves being clogged with crap, for the sake of 'liberal economics', then that's up to you.

I haven't really watched TV in 3 years, either. That's probably why I reminisce.

Well, if you're satisfied with the airwaves being clogged with crap, for the sake of 'liberal economics', then that's up to you.

I haven't really watched TV in 3 years, either. That's probably why I reminisce.
Not just liberal economics. Public television runs the risk of stiffling intellectual diversity. One station that is extremely good is worse than a thousand stations that have their own quality, but are entitled to produce what they wish. Even the big four networks in the US don't have that much freedom. As they are networks viewed by all, they are subject to FCC scrutiny. Cable stations aren't.

I just wanted to stick my oar in and say the BBC is NOT government controlled, the only thing the government does is make it illegal to not pay your TV License, it does not recieve "tax revenues" as the tv license pays for it and it goes directly to the BBC the government doesnt see any of it.

Oh and to prove the BBC isnt controlled by the government, does anyone here remember the uproar about Mr Kelly killing himself?
If it isn't affiliated with the government, then why does a board of governors of the BBC supercede its board of directors? And aren't these governors ultimatly accountable to Parliment?

As a Catholic may I just say Father Ted was THE funniest programe ever. Although Fawlty Towers gives it a run for its money.

If it isn't affiliated with the government, then why does a board of governors of the BBC supercede its board of directors? And aren't these governors ultimatly accountable to Parliment?

The board of governors don't have any direct say in programming, although they are publicly accountable for BBC strategy.

The BBC is an autonomous corporation. It is just publicly funded.

Edit: so, yeah, I actually bothered to read something about BBC management.

No. The BBC is an autonomous corporation. It is just publicly funded.
Bingo. Recieving public funds is basically public control. The BBC has operations in many countries, but they have to be established under a different company altogether, with the BBC just its parent. Besides, how do they enforce collection? They either have it liscensed to people at an extremely high cost, or the government funds it. Government funding can always come with strings attached, too.

Besides, how do they enforce collection? They either have it liscensed to people at an extremely high cost, or the government funds it. Government funding can always come with strings attached, too.

I think the license is about £100 per year. A group of goblins in a detector van drive around making sure you aren't stealing the BBC.

I think the license is about £100 per year. A group of goblins in a detector van drive around making sure you aren't stealing the BBC.
Only except we can be certain that those goblins are really Scotland Yard.
That liscense fee, btw, works to about 8 pounds a month, or in our money, around $11. If Americans had to pay that, they'd live without it.

Only except we can be certain that those goblins are really Scotland Yard.
That liscense fee, btw, works to about 8 pounds a month, or in our money, around $11. If Americans had to pay that, they'd live without it.

That's probably why American TV comes out the arse end of awful, then :p

That's probably why American TV comes out the arse end of awful, then :p
I can never get any Europeans. The cost of living is so much higher there than it is here, most large countries in even Western Europe have less of a GDP/capita than the US, the unemployment rate is higher, and taxes are far, far higher. I personally doubt that welfare can be a lot for most recieving it, too. And yet Europeans don't just have a living standard comparable to the US, but they are willing to pay more for a few things. How does that work out?

I can never get any Europeans. The cost of living is so much higher there than it is here, most large countries in even Western Europe have less of a GDP/capita than the US, the unemployment rate is higher, and taxes are far, far higher. I personally doubt that welfare can be a lot for most recieving it, too. And yet Europeans don't just have a living standard comparable to the US, but they are willing to pay more for a few things. How does that work out?

We're not so obsessed by money. We don't rank personal wealth / income above all other things... read this articleaabout holidays/working hours, it's quite interesting: http://www.iht.com/articles/529944.html (obviously not related to this topic, but shows Americans the European way of thinking on these kind of matters that you don't get above).

Anyway, we'd rather have genuinely diverse thought-provoking television and radio that caters for all of society even if that means we have to pay a little more. Our tv-fee is currently around 1800 kr (SEK) a year I think (I paid mine the other week as it happens!).

Anyway, we'd rather have genuinely diverse thought-provoking television and radio that caters for all of society even if that means we have to pay a little more. Our tv-fee is currently around 1800 kr (SEK) a year I think (I paid mine the other week as it happens!).
However, that doesn't need to be. If a public TV station were to be privatized, well if an audienced wished to pay more for higher quality TV, I'm sure they could do it, and it'd probably be cheaper, as they aren't managed by a clumsy bureaocracy. HBO pioneered that method in the US, and that is actually how cable TV made its debut. Most still prefer commercials to fund it, but these companies will do everything their audience wants. There is only one market iin the world that speaks Swedish, and it is small. I bet you're particular market won't be too hard to please. You can have a hundred of these commercial-free channels in Sweden, if the public wants it. In case you're wondering, btw, I refuse to use the words intellectual or thought provoking in this context, as that is so subjective.
*Edit*
Also, in case you are wondering, I love this more American lifestyle. Finding happiness, I'd think, is my job, and this money-based philosophy doesn't provide that. However, it does provide physical comfort. It is hard for most people to be happy if they live in an unheated apartment without even a bathroom. I'm also a big picture thinker, and I see spending helping the economy at large. Charity treats only the symptoms, but unless one wishes to be some sort of missionary or teacher abroad, it solves nothing in the long run. An economy does. If I buy a plasma screen TV, I have just given 30 Malay factory workers their year's wages, and since their cost of living is very low, they don't need much. Those Malay workers won't just spend it for subsistence, but they may have enough money to spend for themsellves, supporting another worker, etc, etc, etc. Money, by nature, is liquid, and a huge help. In my view, it's best if people help to cultivate and move it, not just let it sit for eons.

"The BBC said it was exploring ways to recoup some of the 2 million pounds ($3.6 million) the 10-part series cost."

All right, so we got people on one side of the issue complaining that tax money is going into television programs, and also there's worries about people being offended. Well if people are offended by the pope bouncing on a pogo stick (why they would be offended I don't know), they need not be forced to watch it, but isn't anyone offended that 2 million pounds was wasted developing a comedy that the public (the people that paid all that money) is never going to get a chance to see? Those are pounds taken right from the British people's pockets, and now some people are offended, whether or not they see the show, money was flushed down the shitter, and those that might have enjoyed the pope-bashing aren't going to see it. Overall a shitty deal for all involved. At least if the program was put on the air, some people would get some laughs out of it. Now no-one gets anything but screwed over.

"The BBC said it was exploring ways to recoup some of the 2 million pounds ($3.6 million) the 10-part series cost."

All right, so we got people on one side of the issue complaining that tax money is going into television programs, and also there's worries about people being offended. Well if people are offended by the pope bouncing on a pogo stick (why they would be offended I don't know), they need not be forced to watch it, but isn't anyone offended that 2 million pounds was wasted developing a comedy that the public (the people that paid all that money) is never going to get a chance to see? Those are pounds taken right from the British people's pockets, and now some people are offended, whether or not they see the show, money was flushed down the shitter, and those that might have enjoyed the pope-bashing aren't going to see it. Overall a shitty deal for all involved. At least if the program was put on the air, some people would get some laughs out of it. Now no-one gets anything but screwed over.
The pope on a pogo stick was just a sticking point. Some found it offensive because the Vatican is portrayed in there as a business, with the pope as a CEO.