nebilcs-168-165298 I watched the first few episodes of the first season and giggled appropriately. Goodness knows the BBC makes a good target for this kind of satire and is a good proxy for many similar corporate settings. But after a while fatigue set in. Compared with Twenty Twelve which was consistently laugh-out-loud funny, too many characters in W1A share similar lines and "yes/no/cool" affectations. But what really fails is the mockumentary angle. It was tenuous in Twenty Twelve but just about kept within the lines as an unlikely but feasible documentary. W1A would have been better pitched as a straightforward satirical comedy rather than having a narration constantly remind the viewer that we are supposed to regard this as a reality programme.

Andrew Hamilton (hi_and) A hilarious skewering of both the BBC and the mindset of corporate lackeys everywhere. Absolutely crammed with great characters, many of whom, in the British manner, have their distinctive and increasingly wonderful catch-phrases. It seems impossible that this got made by the same organization that is portrayed in the show, but it is very pleasing that it was. It's just a shame that the number of episodes per season is small even by UK standards.

Mouthbox "You're aware that you're at the centre of something genuinely important, and the exciting thing is to think that part of the job is establishing where that centre is, and what it's in the middle of." It's hard to parody something that's already a parody of itself, so W1A (BBC2) – the BBC's bizarre and surreal mickey take of its own corridors of power – must be viewed in context.Because the sad truth is that the real-world BBC is far more bizarre and surreal than this fairly tame spoof, and the only real mickey take in the equation is the way the real Beeb behaves while claiming to serve its hard-working license payers.BBC2′s continuity announcer accidentally introduced W1A by calling it a "new drama." A Freudian slip, no doubt, by a BBC staffer on the brink of insanity.Noel Edmonds went on Newsnight this week and announced that he wants to buy the BBC. Remind me, was that in the spoof version of the corporation or in the real-world BBC? It's almost impossible to tell.I've worked for the BBC many times, in many different roles, so I suppose I should have found W1A hilarious. However, it was so close to the truth that all the programme actually succeeded in doing was to remind me of the anger, frustration and helplessness I felt while working there.Most of the meetings really are a ridiculous waste of time. Many of the managers genuinely are pointless, poorly informed, time-servers who are only interested in protecting their own interests. Verbal communications skills are virtually non-existent in many Social Media-obsessed staff, and the curse of hopping from hot desk to hot desk means it's impossible to hold a meaningful conversation or concentrate on anything at all in your own space.W1A is written by the same team who brought us the brilliant Twenty Twelve. David Tennant's back as the deadpan and slightly puzzled narrator, and Ian Fletcher (Hugh Bonneville) moves from Head of Deliverance at the Olympics to becoming Head of Values at the BBC. Jessica Hynes also returns as Siobhan Sharp, the air-headed PR guru.There are many new faces as well, notably Jason Watkins as the slimy and grinning Head of Strategic Governance, and Hugh Skinner as Will – the intellectually challenged intern who seems to struggle with even the most basic of tasks. Will's epic mental battle in delivering two cups of coffee to their recipients was one of the highlights of the first episode. I suspect his character will rise swiftly through the ranks and will probably end up as Director General if the show runs long enough.Just as David Brent was far too painful to watch if you worked in an office, W1A may be a little too much for many BBC staff to endure. Alan Yentob and Salman Rushdie arm-wrestling in a meeting room? Remind me, was that in W1A, or did I see it on this week's Newsnight?

ianlouisiana No doubt about it,the BBC wants to be loved,wants to be "Auntie" and "The Beeb",wants to be known as the home of "Children in Need" and "Sports Relief" where its favoured entertainers and presenters are given endless opportunities to show their caring side whilst simultaneously promoting themselves and their BBC programmes whilst engaging in emotional blackmail. In reality,the national broadcaster is smug,self - regarding,self - regulating,incestuous,and exerts far too powerful an influence on its audience whom it regards as a malleable amorphous mass who blindly pay out their licence fee in order to be patronised,ignored and have their intelligence insulted at regular intervals. Thus with "W1A"they may appear to be mocking their own excesses but in fact they are showing them off - demonstrating to us viewers that the organisation will always be an Oxbridge talking shop producing whatever it decides will be good for us and spending our money however it sees fit with no possibility of redress. Too many clever - clever people at the BBC may chortle at the in - jokes and applaud the "sporting" way celebrities appear as themselves(don't think Miss C.Vorderman should give up her day job - whatever it may be) but have failed to consider that this programme's predecessor,"2012", was centred on a specific once - in - a - lifetime event that for the previous two years had occupied the news media almost non - stop.It was very much of its time. The BBC's Olympic Legacy seems to consist of re - cycled scripts and hackneyed ideas,I'm afraid.