Should Countdown BAN Under 16's?

[James Robinson]

This might sound like a hypothetical question,......... BUT IT ISN'T

At the CoChest tournament on Saturday, I had just arrived and saw quite a few of the other competitors talking. I assumed that they were talking about Nick Hewer taking over from Jeff Stelling, but it was nothing of the sort.

They were talking about this 9-year-old girl making her CO-event debut, Shrinidhi Prakash. Shrinidhi will be taking part in the World Scrabble Championships in Malaysia next month, along with a few ex-Countdowners I suspect.

Earlier this year, she had an audition for this show, and came top out of the 8 contestants, and had been given a place on the show, which would have made her the show's youngest ever female contestant.

However, she has since been told that under-16's are now no longer going to be allowed to participate on the show

And when you consider all the under-16 talent there has been on the show, that is really shocking.

3 series winners (Wayne Summers, Conor Travers & Oliver Garner) wouldn't have been able to compete, and at least a further 2 finals (the ones with Allan Saldanha and Eoin Monaghan) would have been completely different, as well all the stories in the press surrounding talented youngsters such as Kai and Tanmay Dixit.

I think that is a travesty that an age limit seems to have been put on the quiet, and that talented youngsters won't be able to show off their talents on the show any more.

[Jon Corby]

Dunno, although I did always wonder why no under-16s (? not sure about the exact age limit actually) were allowed in the audience, while they were obviously allowed on set as contestants (and then they always seemed able to make exceptions to allow these young contestants in the audience). Maybe there's some OFCOM rule which is being tightened up? Maybe there's extra hoops you have to jump through now if you want to film children, and they can't be arsed?

[szodiac]

Interesting tidbit of news That probably another reason why they wouldn't have my daughter Jessica on instead of me (or both) from our audition last August. They said they'd contact her after her GCSE's in June/July when she'd finished. Incidentally Jessica turns 16 this 16th December! There was also a 'no under-16' stipulation for sitting in the audience too (although they could have satyed in the 'green room')! As for UK participating @ the WYSC this year; from the team of Shrinidhi, (my daughters) Jessica and Natasha, Tim Butcher, Joe Knapper (think he declined), 10 year old Jack Durand and our Oliver.; Only Oliver has Countdown pedigree - and he still plays Oxford only words! (- unless you count wife Diane who is the adult in charge of Jess and Tash). Please pray this horrible London fog lifts by Firday week!

Mauro

[James Robinson]

What I'm more amazed about is the fact that she was still told to do an audition, because if they knew about this rule, why let her do it in the first place

[Innis Carson]

Doesn't sound like a change they would make by their own choice, as far as I can recall there's only been about 3 or 4 under-16 contestants in the past few years anyway so it's not like they were taking over the show. If it was anything to do with Damian's concern about young males being overrepresented, then this would do nothing to solve it. Probably just a legal precaution like Jon said.

[Ian Volante]

They've probably been told that they'd have to go through the legal checks and get certificated for being responsible for kids etc etc, which is time-consuming and expensive, especially if all the crew would have to do that.

[Mark Deeks]

It's not the end of the world. Countdown isn't going anywhere, so imagine how good she'll be in 7 years.

[Karen Pearson]

Somebody (possibly Shrinidhi's mum) said that they can't film children for more than an hour at a time and then they have to give them something like an hour's break. And I think she also said they can't film for more than 3 hours in a day. So, it may well just be down to new rules and logistics - you're going to struggle to get 5 shows filmed in a day on that basis.

[Thomas Carey]

No way! I'd promised my school I'd go on in Series 67!

Anyway, I wanted to do it now because the talent of people is improving. I probably won't be good enough by the time I'm old enough, in Series 70!

Plus, who knows if it'll still be on by S70 anyway? Another reason I wanted to get on quickly was the fact I know it's not gonna last long.

All in all, that rule is the biggest pile of bullsh*t I've ever heard!



P.S. Should be a poll.

[Eoin Monaghan]

Aw, that sucks. So glad I applied at the stage I did. I know that anyone who grew up with Countdown from a young age with hopes of appearing might be scuppered for, like Thomas said, it may not be around by that stage or they may have grown out of it when they are old enough. I know I definitely wouldn't have enjoyed it as much if I appeared at an older age compared to the age I did.

Hard luck is all I can say to people like Thomas, Joseph Krol etc... just hope you still have interest at that time!

[Innis Carson]

Another reason I wanted to get on quickly was the fact I know it's not gonna last long.

What makes you say this?

[Thomas Carey]

Another reason I wanted to get on quickly was the fact I know it's not gonna last long.

What makes you say this?

New host, low viewing figures etc. I hope Nick is good.

[Gavin Chipper]

Shrinidhi will be taking part in the World Scrabble Championships in Malaysia next month, along with a few ex-Countdowners I suspect.

We;ve already had the world championships this year haven't we?

[Charlie Reams]

When you consider all the under-16 talent there has been on the show, that is really shocking.

Indeed.

[James Robinson]

Shrinidhi will be taking part in the World Scrabble Championships in Malaysia next month, along with a few ex-Countdowners I suspect.

We;ve already had the world championships this year haven't we?

As Mauro has mentioned above, it's the Youth version, as opposed to the adult version.

[Graeme Cole]

I hope this isn't true. I think it'd be a massive mistake for all the reasons James has given, assuming it's a decision they're making voluntarily rather than it being imposed on them.

I watched the show at an early age, and I don't remember much of it. However, I do remember watching a nine year old boy playing not just well, but exceptionally well, comfortably beating adult after adult. That really stuck out. I now know that was Allan Saldanha. People like him, through to Conor, Kai and Eoin, generate only positive publicity for the show, and plenty of it, so I really can't see why they'd want to throw that away.

Really hope this is all just a misunderstanding.

[Rhys Benjamin]

Really, really shocked.



It's incredible to think of no under sixteen's on the show as I generally love it when people like Kai or Eoin rub others' faces in. Even those that can't get to that stage would be disappointed, me (and Thomas) for example. I just printed out the application form!

[Mike Brown]

[Brian Moore]

I suspect that (if it is true) it is for all the child protection areas mentioned above. The whole area's getting crazier and crazier. It's tightly regulated in theatres, both in the time they are allowed to be there, and in where they can go. I recently played in a production of Annie, and the children (i.e anyone under 16) were housed in external changing rooms, and chaperoned everywhere, even escorted to the toilet in groups. And I work in schools, where there are similarly rigorous safeguarding procedures, yet when I go for a lunchtime swim at the public pool just down the road, children and (shock horror) un-CRB'd adults (probably with a proportion of pervs) are allowed to share the same spaces with virtually no clothes on.

I'm all for reducing risk to children, but is there any evidence that all these safeguarding measures have actually reduced the risks to children?

[Ian Volante]

I'm glad, I nearly got right shown-up by a kid, the little show-off!

[Clive Brooker]

It's always been part of Countdown's essential character that it's open to anyone provided they can play the game (subject to standard exclusions of course). It seems this is no longer true, which won't help the programme in the long run. I'm sure it won't be long before people start writing in complaining that we never see the youngsters any more.

I can't believe that the regulations which have been talked about would be an insurmountable problem if the will were there. It wouldn't surprise me if the production team is quite glad to have this change forced on them because it means they no longer have to deal with the consequences of a highly talented kid losing far too early.

[Lesley Hines]

You only need a CRB check if you're going to be on your own with children. If it's down to new regulations about filming times and breaks etc. how do they churn out all the crap on CBBC and the like? Surely that's going to make kids' TV really expensive? Maybe that's why they haven't changed the advertising rules about targeting kids under 12.

'Course, the other side of the coin is when a nipper goes on and they get beaten, which is pretty tough if you're young. Especially if they're rigorously enforcing the no returns policy, you've kinda blown your chance as a kid when you might have done well as an adult, just cos pressure's a funny thing. Not every child who applies is outstanding, even if they're good enough to make it on.

[Jon Corby]

If it's down to new regulations about filming times and breaks etc. how do they churn out all the crap on CBBC and the like?

I don't know what crap on CBBC you're specifically referring to, but Countdown is a very long and exhausting day. I don't find it a stretch at all to see how the current filming schedule might contravene any new regulations.

[Malcolm James]

Maybe there ought to be an online petition. If nothing else it might force Damian to clarify the position.

[Phil Reynolds]

You only need a CRB check if you're going to be on your own with children.

Not true. Enhanced CRB checks are mandatory for anyone who is regularly involved in supervision of children, regardless of whether other CRB-checked adults are present.

[Graeme Cole]

I asked about it this morning, and Damian's sent me an email which explains everything.

The summary is: yes, it's true; no, they're not doing it voluntarily, it's been imposed on them; and yes, it's due to new regulations about how many hours children can perform.

Damian's not going to post here, but he doesn't mind me relating the situation on the forum.

As discussed above, when working with children there are all kinds of broadcasting guidelines and regulations. They need written permission from the child's school and Local Education Authority, and a statement of fitness to attend from their doctor. Then on the day they need to be chaperoned everywhere by someone who has to record all sorts of information including how long they're performing for, when they're having breaks, and even what they're eating and drinking.

This much they can cope with, even though it's a bit of a pain in the arse. However, shortly after Eoin's appearance the production team were made aware of new, much stricter, rules. The best way for me to illustrate what they're up against is to quote the relevant paragraph from his email:

Beyond that - this is where it gets absurd. The child cannot be in our building, whether asleep, playing Countdown or whatever, for more than 7.5 hours per day - and they are not allowed in the building after 7pm. They cannot take part for more than 1 hour without a rest - and as you know, from being miked up on set, to finishing the actual show, often takes more than 1 hour. Then there are strict break regulations, which mean if they keep winning, we cannot resume recordings as per normal, we have to wait for certain amounts of time to elapse before they can carry on. They are only allowed to perform for a maximum of 4 hours in any one
day, which basically means 3 shows. They need a separate toilet - they can't use the normal ladies and gents, and they have to be escorted by their parent / guardian to the loo at all times. We don't have separate toilets. It's just become impossible for us. We have to schedule a working day for the crew. We can't say something like.........you'll be working until 9pm as normal, but if the kid keeps winning we'll be stopping at 7pm.....its just not possible. We have audiences to consider and of course, all our production costs.

So basically the broadcasting rules concerning children are no longer compatible with the Countdown recording schedule. The lack of an age barrier is one of the things that made Countdown unique among game shows, so it's sad they have to lose that. However, there is a small amount of ointment on the fly: the door is still open for children to participate in one-off specials, so it's possible Shrinidhi might appear on one of those.

And it's not true that they're glad to have this forced upon them as Clive suggested. They're "not comfortable with it at all"; it's genuinely something that's outside their control.

[Ian Volante]

What a load of bollocks. The outcome, rather than the reasons that is. What we need, as ever, is common sense*.

*Not Common Sense however, I'm no fascist...

[Clive Brooker]

Well done for doing that Graeme. It seems pretty open and shut. Good to know that the will is there from the production team. I wasn't really suggesting otherwise, but I think it was a legitimate question.

The only possible point of argument I can see is that because Countdown's situation is unique (possibly) in enabling children to compete on equal terms with adults, it's hardly surprising that legislation designed to deal with a largely different scenario doesn't fit too well. Making an exception for Countdown wouldn't therefore set a dangerous precedent. And it would only happen very occasionally.

I'm not sure I like the idea of giving a precocious youngster valuable studio experience before they come along as a 16-year-old to wipe the floor with their 8 victims.

Maybe an online petition isn't so absurd. I'm sure the Queen would give sound advice.

[Malcolm James]

I just thought a petition would force Damian to clarify things, but he has done so. It's ironic that givven the concern about the show being taken over by precocious boys, the first person we know that this affects is one of the very few young girls to pass the auditions. Clearly the patriarchy felt threatened by Shrindhi and did what it had to to oppress her by stopping her appearing.

[Jon Corby]

Cheers for the clarification Damian (via the medium of Graeme). It's a real shame.

In order to whip up some public outrage to try and get this changed, I contacted the Daily Mail. Unfortunately, Liz Thomas got the phone, so the piece is instead going to focus on Carol Vorderman, and how this wouldn't have happened back in her day before Richard died (which really upset her) and then she got sacked while contemplating a 90% pay cut (which also really upset her). She might even have said something about including some sinister undertone about how it's because the new team aren't allowed to work with children for other reasons, but tbh she seemed quite drunk and it was difficult to understand her slurred speech.

[szodiac]

An option maybe... to have a three game special for youngsters (think it's been done once already). A semi with the winners going onto a final. I suggest Jessica v sister Natasha in one semi. Shrinidhi paired with our other Scrabble wunderkind Jack Durand in the other. Should make for interestingTV ! Then they can play the main game when they get older!

Mauro

[David Williams]

I think this decision has to be applauded. It's the only way to protect innocent, up-standing members of my generation from being publicly humiliated by children.

[Eoin Monaghan]

If under 16's are only allowed on for one-off shows I think it would be great to have a few of those! .

[Richard Priest]

It seems rather strange to suddenly bring this rule in now after all these years, but if they were going to bring it in why couldn't they have done it before the last ever C of C?

[Stewart Gordon]

Earlier this year, she had an audition for this show, and came top out of the 8 contestants, and had been given a place on the show, which would have made her the show's youngest ever female contestant.

However, she has since been told that under-16's are now no longer going to be allowed to participate on the show

The producers certainly should not be allowed to get away with offering someone a place on the show and then taking it back. Unless maybe the person in question was later found to have broken rules that were already in place.

And when you consider all the under-16 talent there has been on the show, that is really shocking.

3 series winners (Wayne Summers, Conor Travers & Oliver Garner) wouldn't have been able to compete, and at least a further 2 finals (the ones with Allan Saldanha and Eoin Monaghan) would have been completely different, as well all the stories in the press surrounding talented youngsters such as Kai and Tanmay Dixit.

I think that is a travesty that an age limit seems to have been put on the quiet, and that talented youngsters won't be able to show off their talents on the show any more.

Indeed, this young talent is part of what has made Countdown what it is over the years. Has there ever been any other game show that allowed children (not just 16s and 17s) and adults to compete on an equal footing?

Dunno, although I did always wonder why no under-16s (? not sure about the exact age limit actually)

I recall it being 15 when I was on the show.

What I'm more amazed about is the fact that she was still told to do an audition, because if they knew about this rule, why let her do it in the first place

Obviously the rule didn't exist when she was auditioned. So the question is of why the new regulations came into force suddenly and without warning.

And I work in schools, where there are similarly rigorous safeguarding procedures, yet when I go for a lunchtime swim at the public pool just down the road, children and (shock horror) un-CRB'd adults (probably with a proportion of pervs) are allowed to share the same spaces with virtually no clothes on.

But is there any rule requiring the children to be accompanied by a responsible adult?

Cheers for the clarification Damian (via the medium of Graeme). It's a real shame.

In order to whip up some public outrage to try and get this changed, I contacted the Daily Mail. Unfortunately, Liz Thomas got the phone, so the piece is instead going to focus on Carol Vorderman, and how this wouldn't have happened back in her day before Richard died (which really upset her) and then she got sacked while contemplating a 90% pay cut (which also really upset her).

Was she sacked? I'd understood that she quit of her own accord.

[Stewart Gordon]

Once upon a time, or so I heard, there were plans for a Junior Countdown but nothing came of them. I wonder whether this project is going to be resurrected. Maybe grant the licence to some TV company that already makes children's game shows.

I also wonder if there's going to be a change to the rule whereby contestants are allowed another go as long as they were under 18 when they were on the show before.

[Stewart Gordon]

Beyond that - this is where it gets absurd. The child cannot be in our building, whether asleep, playing Countdown or whatever, for more than 7.5 hours per day - and they are not allowed in the building after 7pm.

Who made all these rules?

They need a separate toilet - they can't use the normal ladies and gents, and they have to be escorted by their parent / guardian to the loo at all times.

So why aren't public places generally required to have separate adults' and children's toilets?

Or have a lot of supermarkets, shopping malls, restaurants, bowling alleys, amusement parks, etc. had to close to children while they get the separate children's toilets built?

[Ian Volante]

So why aren't public places generally required to have separate adults' and children's toilets?

A TV studio isn't a public place, it's a workplace, I suspect herein lies the difference legally.

[Jon O'Neill]

Earlier this year, she had an audition for this show, and came top out of the 8 contestants, and had been given a place on the show, which would have made her the show's youngest ever female contestant.

However, she has since been told that under-16's are now no longer going to be allowed to participate on the show

The producers certainly should not be allowed to get away with offering someone a place on the show and then taking it back. Unless maybe the person in question was later found to have broken rules that were already in place.

Why not? Countdown isn't some sort of Olympic sport. It's a TV show.

[Graeme Cole]

The producers certainly should not be allowed to get away with offering someone a place on the show and then taking it back. Unless maybe the person in question was later found to have broken rules that were already in place.

She was invited to audition because there's still the possibility that she could appear in a special.

[Stewart Gordon]

The producers certainly should not be allowed to get away with offering someone a place on the show and then taking it back. Unless maybe the person in question was later found to have broken rules that were already in place.

Why not? Countdown isn't some sort of Olympic sport. It's a TV show.

Because this person was looking forward to appearing on the show, and may have promised her friends at school/wherever that she's going to be on telly.

Remember also that small children can be very emotionally vulnerable, if that's the way to put it.

[Liam Tiernan]

:
The producers certainly should not be allowed to get away with offering someone a place on the show and then taking it back. Unless maybe the person in question was later found to have broken rules that were already in place.

Graeme Cole wrote:However, shortly after Eoin's appearance the production team were made aware of new, much stricter, rules.

Which , as Damian so painstakingly pointed out to Graham, meant that they HAD to withdraw the offer, as it was no longer possible to accommodate younger contestants within the new rules without major disruptions to the standard five-shows-a- day production schedule.

[Rhys Benjamin]

The producers certainly should not be allowed to get away with offering someone a place on the show and then taking it back. Unless maybe the person in question was later found to have broken rules that were already in place.

Why not? Countdown isn't some sort of Olympic sport. It's a TV show.

Because this person was looking forward to appearing on the show, and may have promised her friends at school/wherever that she's going to be on telly.

Remember also that small children can be very emotionally vulnerable, if that's the way to put it.

But what classifies as small? I think if we could hear from world-famous Tanmay Dixit (now at least 13) then we could get a primary-source answer to all of these.

[Stewart Gordon]

:
The producers certainly should not be allowed to get away with offering someone a place on the show and then taking it back. Unless maybe the person in question was later found to have broken rules that were already in place.

Graeme Cole wrote:However, shortly after Eoin's appearance the production team were made aware of new, much stricter, rules.

Which , as Damian so painstakingly pointed out to Graham, meant that they HAD to withdraw the offer, as it was no longer possible to accommodate younger contestants within the new rules without major disruptions to the standard five-shows-a- day production schedule.

Indeed, when new laws force you to infringe somebody's rights, what are you meant to do?

Sue parliament for not warning the public before implementing it?

[Jon Corby]

Indeed, when new laws force you to infringe somebody's rights, what are you meant to do?

Just accept that you've been unlucky with timings, but really it's not that big a deal just to wait a little while longer, and not really get too het up about it? If I know Jessica (which I don't), I'm sure she understands and is handling it a lot better than you