Kitten Wank!
And it's not even from Cute Overload. Sadly, this means there are no boobies involved. First off, though:

Background Info 1 - Over the past couple of years there's been a number of scandalous about shenanigans in the operation of various premium number phone-ins attached to various British TV shows, mainly on reality TV shows and quizzes.

Background Info 2 - Blue Peter is a long-running and highly respected children's programme produced by the BBC. It has winsome fresh-faced presenters, adorable pets, a garden, and regular features on how to make your own model of Hogwarts out of toilet roll tubes and sticky tape. It occupies the same place in the hearts and minds of the British public as Sesame Street does for Americans.

Got that? Good. So, Blue Peter acquires a new kitten, always a cause for celebration, and opens a phone poll for children to vote for their favourite name for the her. The kitten is subsequently named Socks, and all appears well.

BUT WAIT! Things all start to get a bit murky when it turns out that Socks was not the name chosen by Blue Peter viewers. Yes, the BBC chose a different name and fibbed about it. The producer of Blue Peter is suspended, while the British press goes into overdrive re 'Cat Flap' (as the scandal is nicknamed) and makes more pussy jokes than you could shake a catnip mouse at.

Meanwhile, over at the Guardian's ever-wanky blog section, readers slug it out over whether or not the naming of cats is serrius bizness.

Choice comments (some intentional lulz, mostly unintentional):

Thompson presides over this in his weasely bureaucratic way - creating this absurd witchunt by arse-covering senior management against the workface staff.

Draw a line by all means and say it must never happen again but don't sack people for doing what EVERYONE in the industry has always done. I don't know one producer who hasn't done this kind of thing at least once. It's only TV and radio, get over it. It's hardly faking, oh I dunno, a dossier and then going to war based on it.

I think it's in the public interest for the Beeb to step forward and say "Parents of the great British kiddie public, this is the name your children chose." And tell us what it was. And then say there'll be no more participation of kiddies on programmes until they collectively apologise.

As for lying to children...why didn't Blue Peter just take the most popular name and sod what anyone thinks - the children chose it.

Apparently it was going to be called Foots but in the coverup they called it Socks.
(Did you see what I did there?)

If someone really has been sacked because he decided not to give the Blue Peter cat the name the viewers had voted for then we have reached a new low point for how an employer treats an employee.

I hope Richard Marson takes his case to BECTU and they sue the corporation until the pipsqueaks' pips squeak.

Of course he should be sacked. [SNIP!] His actions have seriously damaged both the Blue Peter brand and the BBC brand. There aren't many employees who would survive doing that much harm.

Yes, if it's important enough to lie about, it's important enough to get sacked over. If you can't trust the BBC to name a kitten, how can you trust them over anything?

I hope the cat never finds out about all of this

It's not just about naming a cat, it's about maintaining values

Its asking the young viewers to get involved by voting, then telling them to f*ck off.

In the pub this evening, I learn Cookie is slang for 'fanny' in certain cultures. Apparently. So now you know.

Mark Thompson has ensured that the BBC has no credibility at all when it comes to dealing honestly with the audience

It is still unclear whether 'Socks' ought to have been named 'Pussy' or 'Cookie'. So she has three names, which should at least please Old Possum.