Fiona Bruce, visiting a workhouse on the Antiques Roadshow, says "Just like in Oliver Twist you can imagine Mr Pickwick and his Matron stalking these corridors."

Hmm .. .. anyone else know what's wrong with that statement?

Samuel Pickwick was the main charakter of The Pickwick Papers.

Spot on; she meant Mr Bumble the beadle of course!

Whoever wrote her script needs to do better research. It's not as though the BBC hasn't covered Dickens often enough.

Awful - 'inspiring awe; Oxford.'

Surely not ! Just a simple mistake.

I even make them myself sometOmes....

Not really just a simple mistake when you consider the number of researchers employed by TV companies, and how this is a recorded show with ample opportunity for retakes. When you broadcast to millions, there is a certain need to get it right.

On a live show it could be a simple mistake. On a recorded prime time show, it is inexcusable. It demonstrates low standards, and we are talking about the BBC.

OK...the BBC got their Pickwick in a Twist.

But everyone can make a mistake, no matter what the circumstances; viewers would have got the point (I did) and no harm was done.

It wasn't as if a real person in a serious news item was given the wrong name - and, often, when a mistake is later identified in a recorded item, it cannot be rectified without (for example) going back to the original set at great expense.

When a matter is seen as not too important, a commercial/logical view is taken. Awful gaff...no Sir; but if you think it is that awful, do you feel an apology is in order - to Mr Bumble ?

Mr Bumble came up with one of the great truths in literature... "The Law is an Ass".

Well this has opened up a bigger debate than I thought.

On the overall scale of universal disasters it was not "awful", but to me as a viewer I thought the BBC should have done better. It was sloppy and easily correctable. I knew what she meant, but I use he word awful as my personal opinion. Some people think curry is "awful". It's a word which, like many, is used in various ways to various degrees to describe a low opinion of something.

It is a widely known fact that Mr Pickwick was not in Oliver Twist, and I can't believe that nobody at the BBC noticed this error. They filmed their own version of Oliver Twist only last year. The book is covered in English Literature courses in schools nationwide. It's not as though she was referring to some obscure novel by an unknown writer.

Should we never pull up the BBC for making a mistake?
Am I not permitted to voice an opinion?

On my media studies course I would have been marked down for such a careless error, and rightly so.

If an apology was in order, it would be to the viewers who help finance the BBC, but I wouldn't personally pursue or expect an apolgy - just more of an effort in future.

BTW, going back to a workhouse in England wouldn't be greatly expensive, and it would demonstrate that the BBC cared about the standard of their output.

Yes...voice an opinion.

But 'gaffs' are common place on TV, without being awful.

For example...1) Dad's Army often has jet streams in the sky...2) Spectacles were worn in The Romans...3) Foyle's War has the wrong cars. I could go on...

Really Denise. Books have been published on what you call 'awful gaffs' (BBC or otherwise)...aka human error.

In Eastenders (BBC/taxpayers' money!) a few years ago, Pauline Fowler - in the one short scene, in The Vic - was drinking lager, G&T and Vodka and coke.

Was this a 'really awful BBC gaff' ??

The Mr Bumble one was one the BBC thought might just be worth ignoring........

This is an interesting thread. It's hardly a major topic although I tend to side with Denise and JC.

Not really convinced that jet streams in the sky matter much in a comedy. They are also quite easy to miss, although when I was directing an amateur video we did go back and reshoot one scene because of one. I doubt many viewers would notice, but I did, and I wanted to do the job right.

Spectacles on Romans? Depends on if it was a serious documentary. Some terribly inacuracies on Robin Hood and The Tudors. They matter to some, but not to others. Best to try and get it right, in my opinion. It's not difficult.

Wrong cars in Foyle's War. I'm not car expert so didn't notice, and it might be expensive to recreate or restore the right cars. However, I would have noticed if Foyle had referred to Harold Wilson as Prime Minister.

Eastenders? That entire show is so far removed from reality.

Antiques Roadshow was giving a factual presentation of history. It wasn't comedy or drama. Oliver Twist isn't factual, but it is a well known part of history. The BBC thought their slip "might just be worth ignoring"? That's a very interesting attitude. It seems some of the viewers haven't ignored it. It also seems the BBC couldn't give a hoot.

Not counting myself, Denise or JC, I've counted 11 viewers who picked up on that mistake. Those are just the ones I personally know of. So, such errors are noted, and I believe the reputation of the BBC suffers because of it, whether the organisation cares or not.

The error itself isn't such an issue. But if the BBC stick two fingers up at viewers who pull them up about it, that becomes the real issue.

OK that's my tuppence worth.

Dominic - you really can't have it every way -

o- The Romans was a serious documentary!

o- why don't jet streams matter in Dad's Army ?
everything else was accurate, uniforms, vehicles, beers etc.

o- wrong cars in Foyle's War - is ok?

o- Eastenders' errors are ok ? Is this further from
reality than Mr Bumble ?

o- yes, a lot of errors in Robin Hood and The Tudors

'Oliver Twist isn't factual....' No, its a totally fictitious book written a long time ago. Is it not more important to get facts correct, rather than fiction ?

You seem to be highly selective in your interpretations of what is a 'gaff' or not - or what might be an important one, for whatever reason.

The BBC....'couldn't give a hoot' 'sticks up two finger' Why/when ?

They simply made a minor error (mixing up two fictonal characters) whilst filming a long program about factual matters; they chose not to correct it and were sussed, by some....

It strikes me that Denise's initial post was fairly harmless and could have just been shrugged off by those who disgreed. Then this weirdly over the top defence of the BBC wouldn't have been necessary.

Are some contributers to this thread employed by the BBC?
Just wondering.

Oliver Twist was fictional, but the novel exists in the real world and it is a fact that Mr Pickwick was not in it.

You could argue examples until doomsday, but viewers still have the right to their points of view. Unless I missed some new legislation removing yet another freedom.

Thanks for your advice Al - but all we're doing IS giving our views, if that's ok.

Who is defending the BBC - which, all agree, made the mistake ?

We're just debating whether it was an 'awful gaff' or just one of many ?

So, your penultimate paragraph is not a surprise to us !

Al, tell us what you think of the 'awful gaff' - or are you just a font on a screen (an error proof one) ?

Al, I think you'll just have to be the judge - and please keep to the point.

If in a serious context, in a TV show, an actor/presenter called Superman's mate 'Robin' - would that be an 'awful gaff' ?

Or just - in your view - an irelevancy, concerning fictitious people who had appeared in numerous books and movies.

My penultimate paragraph was not a surprise to "Us"?
Is that like the Royal "We" or do you represent more than one person?

My penultimate paragraph was in response to your sentence - 'Oliver Twist isn't factual....' No, its a totally fictitious book written a long time ago. Is it not more important to get facts correct, rather than fiction ? It is rather self explanatory.

What the heck is a "Font on a screen"?

I think "Awful gaff" was Denise's description. I have no strong feelings either way. It was a mistake. They could have done better, but it's over and it's too late for it to be undone.

Elgar wrote:
Al, I think you'll just have to be the judge - and please keep to the point.

I did keep to the point.

Elgar wrote:If in a serious context, in a TV show, an actor/presenter called Superman's mate 'Robin' - would that be an 'awful gaff' ?

If in a serious context, yes it would

Elgar wrote:Or just - in your view - an irelevancy, concerning fictitious people who had appeared in numerous books and movies.

In a private casual conversation it would be no big deal, but we are not talking about a private casual conversation. We are talking about professional broadcasters who, viewers would hope, would have done some proper research and be in posession of a certain level of knowledge about their subject.

Pease keep your views constant M8. Wrong or right. Al...and watch .........

Yes.

The 'judge' says it was a mistake.

That's what I thought.

Al, I would not bother continuing this debate.
The pattern of responses suggest a single mind behind several names, and it becomes more pointless.

It's mere pedanticism.

Time to move on.