It's not enough to ban people who have been convicted - rightly or wrongly - of crimes. Now they ban dead stars accused of crimes. And records bought for the wrong reasons.

Why didn't they ban those ghastly charity tracks? "At No1 is an appalling piece of shit released on behalf of suffering relatives; we shall only be playing a few seconds of it..."

How long before "we won't be playing this Justin Bieber hit - fans only bought it because he's pretty..."

Or "Una Paloma Blanca? Only 5 seconds of this Top Three hit because it's shit".

Here's your chart. Sadly we can't play the numbers 4, 7 and 15 as performers have speeding fines. Nor 1, 2, 6 and 9 as members of the groups have drug convictions. Likewise, Numbers 3, 5, 8 and 10 have violinists in the background who fiddled their taxes. I'm not allowed to present this show as I parked illegally last week and my producer has been done for having underage sex. Sadly the station will have to remain silent but don't worry, the new DG will sort things out... oops, sorry, he's just been fired by the Editor of the Daily Mail. Goodnight and wank you.

This stupid decision is an example of Thatcher's sinister legacy. Thatcher started (or at least intensified) the (politically & commercially motivated) attacks on the BBC in the 80s - and this is the result: A Radio One controller who "thought long and hard about how to respond" to a 70 year old song in the charts.

Ben Cooper: "I’ve therefore decided exceptionally that we should treat the rise of the song, based as it is on a political campaign to denigrate Lady Thatcher’s memory, as a news story. So we will play a brief excerpt of it in a short news report during the show which explains to our audience why a 70-year-old song is at the top of the charts. Most of them are too young to remember Lady Thatcher and many will be baffled by the sound of the Munchkins from the Wizard of Oz."

This "compromise" is the worst decision he could make. The campaign to get the song in the charts is certainly newsworthy. And the media is already full of reports about it. So there is no need for including a "short news report" in the R1 chart show. Just play the music.

Cooper has damaged the BBC much more than Jimmy Saville.

It really is typical BBC - they will play a brief excerpt to "explain to their listeners why it's there".
For God's sake - why?
Are they going to explain that One Direction are at No4 because their teen girl fans like Harry's bum?
Or that some obscure rapper is No9 because they were big in Florida and their label decided to devote a hefty chunk of that week's budget to pushing it?
Or that a young singer songwriter was No4 because the wife of the Chairman of a publishing company fancied him?
Or that the golden oldie at No2 was a TV commercial for Boots so - not a real reason and they would only be playing 5 seconds of it?

I really despair of the sanity of our species.

JK2006 wrote:
It really is typical BBC - they will play a brief excerpt to "explain to their listeners why it's there".
For God's sake - why?

Don't blame the BBC. We all know certain tabloids have a cynical anti-BBC agenda, but instead of condemning it the rest of the media sits back and enjoys it, leaving a truly invaluable institution to battle one silly campaign after another. The BBC had to respond to this nonsense, because, as you know only too well, it's nonsense peddled by publications that too large a proportion of the public regard as authoritative.

It is definitely ridiculous: it's just a track and it's selling. A kid's song that's been popular through many generations and played for years by the very same barmy broadcasting corporation.

... violinists in the background who fiddled their taxes Is this conjecture JK or do you know something?

The clue is in the words used NCS!