BS: Jonathon Woss off air!

Subject: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 29 Oct 08 - 06:08 PM

Best new I've heard in months!

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 29 Oct 08 - 06:13 PM

Me too mate, someone once described him as "The fabulously untalented Jonathan Ross". That was a good call in my book.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: GUEST,fredbert
Date: 29 Oct 08 - 06:36 PM

What do his defenders say about our dropping of standards.

Some guy said that it was ok because 20 somethings saw no harm in the stunt and thought it was funny, wonder if Ross tells blue/rude jokes to his kids.

One idiot said it was something his friend would do,imagine meeting the guy that say's something like that about your daughter/granddaughter,pick a bag you want to carry your nads home in, I'd say.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: sian, west wales
Date: 29 Oct 08 - 06:44 PM

Catters not in the UK may need some background on this.

I think they're both idiots. How the BBC - or any responsible broadcaster - can sanction crank phone calls is beyond me. Life in the Media is way too detatched from everyday life and this is what you end up with.

sian

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Oct 08 - 07:31 PM

Gweat news!

But of course he'll be back before long.

I find it hard that anybody can stand this man, the best reason I know for being thankful for the invention of the remote control.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: skipy
Date: 29 Oct 08 - 07:48 PM

£18,000,000 for a 3 year contract! so now he is "laid off" on full pay! call that a result! if the Beeb lay him off full time he is still quids in & will be snapped up by channel 4 or 5!
He can't lose!
Skipy

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Folkiedave
Date: 29 Oct 08 - 08:17 PM

And according to the latest Private Eye he is quick to resort to law to defend his own privacy.

The money is obscene.

Hypocite.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: skipy
Date: 29 Oct 08 - 08:35 PM

Then boycott everthing he does, but he will still win
Skipy

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: the lemonade lady
Date: 29 Oct 08 - 08:37 PM

Isn't it our license money? Why are we paying him? Why aren't we asked if we want him to be paid to do nothing? Let him starve!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Oct 08 - 09:19 PM

The thing is that the people in charge have decided that Woss is the key to getting younger viewers, and that that is desperately important for the future of the BBC.

But who watches TV that much when they are young anyway, if they've got the chance to do anything better? Young people grow older and grow up, and that is when they are likely to see the Box as more important.

It maybe true for all I know that the rather sad young adukts who watch a lot of TV actually like Jonathan Ross - but I'm equally sure that there are enormous number who correctly see him as a self-satisfied bore, a sort of modern equivalent of Smashie and Nicey. But most of them wouldn't perhaps be watching TV anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Acorn4
Date: 30 Oct 08 - 04:34 AM

Like a lot of modern comedians these two think that humour has to be "smart-arse" and at someone elses expense.

Bring back the Benny Hill show!

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Oct 08 - 04:41 AM

It's interesting that usually those engnaged by the Beeb have to give warranties - and one is about obscenity, defamation, invasion of privacy etc.

If I were Aunty Beeb I'd fire the commissioning editor and sue the two idiots on their warranties

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 30 Oct 08 - 04:52 AM

Our country is in financial crisis and Gordon Brown is spending time concerning himself with this. It was headline news on the news last night. If the BBC get fined as a result of it then that will be licence payers money.

I don't have a problem with Jonathan Ross or Russell Brand. They are certainly way, way overpaid and definitely are not worth that sort of money, but for people who don't like them they can be avoided.

They did go too far this time but then I've thought that they have overstepped the mark before this and just got away with it. I am just amazed that with it being pre-recorded it was actually broadcast so they are not the only ones who have made an error of judgement here.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 30 Oct 08 - 04:57 AM

Did anyone actually hear the offending broadcast? Listen to it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGSrTvCE1Sg

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: GUEST,Ralphie
Date: 30 Oct 08 - 05:19 AM

No knee jerk reaction from me.
Of course what Ross and Brand did was indefensible, and apparently Brand has fallen on his sword (metaphorically).
But I can understand the background having worked in Radio 2 for over 30 years.
When you're doing a live show, everybody concentrates and it nearly always works.
A pre record (which this was) is far more dangerous. Things are said and done which are questionable, tasteless, whatever...I've witnessed things in studios that would make your hair curl.
But, But....They almost always end up on the cutting room floor.
The mistake IMO was in the edit. Whoever did that certainly made a mistake, and should have refered the clip in question higher up the management food chain before broadcsting it.
As a studio manager recording a prog, I had to sign a RF Tx form (Ready for transmission) making me responsible for everything on the tape.
I've been away from the Beeb for 2 years now, so am not up to speed with current practices, but I can't believe they've changed that much.
So, a serious and stupid lapse of judgement, which would have been forgotten if it hadn't been for The Daily Mail, who started the whole Shit storm.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: KEVINOAF
Date: 30 Oct 08 - 05:27 AM

perhaps now is the time to review the bbc's charter when it expends licence money employing cretins of this calibre it has surely outlive any useful function it might have had

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Zen
Date: 30 Oct 08 - 05:32 AM

They might consider also suspending a few other smug, rude individuals who try for laughs at others expense, e.g. Frankie Boyle.

Zen

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 30 Oct 08 - 05:41 AM

We have no choice as to whether we pay the TV licence or not. If we have a receiver capable of finding BBC TV, then we must pay, regardless of whether we even watch BBC or not.
We also have no choice as to what the BBC spends this enforced payment on.
Make no mistake about it, the present panic in the BBC is nothing to do with the thousands of licence payers who have complained. It is because politicians have complained, and they are the ones who set the level of the licence fee.
We have no say in whether we pay, or on whom, they in turn spend that money on.
It's taxation without representation.

NO SAY....NO PAY!

XG

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Wyrd Sister
Date: 30 Oct 08 - 05:51 AM

Let's all flood television centre with tea!!

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: fat B****rd
Date: 30 Oct 08 - 06:05 AM

Apart from being grossly offemsive and upsetting to Mr. Sachs and his family, the thing I find most worrying is that there are a lot of, not necessarily young, people who don't see anything wrong in this sort of thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 30 Oct 08 - 06:12 AM

Oh dear.
Calm down and look at it dispassionately.
What was said about Manuel's granddaughter was absolutely true.
What shouldn't have happened was that it went out over the airwaves, or mentioned in public at all.
THAT aspect of what Ross & Brand did was disgraceful, but in general, they were doing what they are paid to do, which is to see where they can push the boundaries of broadcasting. Besides, it's fun to try and see what you can get away with. Kenneth Williams did . . .
That the recording was referred up for a decision on whether to transmit was correct.
The big mistake was that remarks which would be a betrayal of confidence if just bandied about the pub, let alone spoken to the nation, were passed for broadcast.
It's whoever let it go out that should be fired for demonstrating a total lack of common sense or humanity.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 30 Oct 08 - 06:34 AM

It's getting like being forced to buy the News of the World; or go to prison!

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 30 Oct 08 - 06:48 AM

What puzzles me is where did Russell Brand come from? He just sort of appeared in about February or March of this year and was suddenly the most famous man in Britain - so famous that, I believe, his autobiography has been published! Now he'll probably, equally abruptly, disappear.

Jonathon Ross popped into existence about 3 or 4 years ago. Several volumes of his autobiography are probably available by now (I haven't checked) and he's got a contract worth £18 million (a couple of schools or a hospital). He appears to be a foul-mouthed version of Michael Parkinson, with a slight speech impediment and sans the Yorkshire accent. Now, instead of fawning over celebrities it seems to be acceptable to swear at them - a definite advance - but surely not worth 18 million quid ... ? Something tells me that he'll be around for a while yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: KEVINOAF
Date: 30 Oct 08 - 06:52 AM

the point is that the only people that have emerged from this debacle with any semblance of dignity are those who were abused by these two babbling imbeciles the grand daughter is to be commended for her honesty. The beeb will with its usual disregard for public opinion attempt its customary whitewash, their squandering of money is almost a byeword. Low quality broad casting of this nature couple this with biased and inaccurate reportage presents one with a picture of a dinosaur that is long past its date of natural extinction

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 30 Oct 08 - 07:11 AM

I hope the BBC sack the prat and ask for our Eighteen million pounds back!

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 30 Oct 08 - 07:34 AM

Jonathan Ross is suspended on £16,000 a day. He has 18 months left of his 3 year £18m contract and will no doubt get into an expensive legal battle with the BBC if he is sacked and stands to lose the £9m that is outstanding - because it was not his show and it was passed for broadcast. The BBC will surely want to avoid this. However, a lot of people will be fed up, to say the least, if he is suspended on full pay for the rest of the contract so it will be interesting to see what happens now.

Russell Brand has spared the BBC any further hassle because he has resigned.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Paul Burke
Date: 30 Oct 08 - 07:56 AM

My prognosis:

The papers (especially the Murdoch papers) will kick up a stink until Ross is sacked.
The BBC will be forced into a cripplingly expensive legal battle, and end up paying about half the nine million quid outstanding, plus another million in legal costs.
A Murdoch TV station will hire both Ross and Wotsisname.
They will use the scandal to lobby for a reduction in the BBC's licence income.
They will use the fall in audience following the removal of Cack and Shitbag to argue that the BBC is losing popularity, and that public service broadcasting money should be given to independent organisations like the Murdoch empire, that have the best interests of the public at heart.

They will keep doing this until a future tory government (of any of the three major parties) abolishes the BBC and gives its assets away to Murdoch.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Oct 08 - 07:57 AM

Ross must be the World's Greatest Contortionist, otherwise he wouldn't be able to get his head so far up his own arse.

Russell Brand is simply vile in every way - vile in his appearance, vile in his speech, vile in his humour, and by all accounts vile in his sexual habits. A real piece of shit.

Good riddance to them both.

Eighteen million would pay for a lot of folk music on the BBC.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: GUEST,Ralphie
Date: 30 Oct 08 - 08:24 AM

Mr Burke....You are a cynic!!!!
LOL.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 30 Oct 08 - 08:31 AM

Mr Burke may well prove to be correct!

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 30 Oct 08 - 08:53 AM

All this raises again the issue of the silly wages that the BBC pay performers. There's a fresh-faced young presenter out there somewhere who will do Ross's job better than him for a tenth of the price! And, that, also, goes for those grossly overpaid soccer pundits.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 30 Oct 08 - 09:15 AM

Apparently Jonathan Ross has issued legal warnings on a number of occasions when he believed that his own privacy had been invaded. Here

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 30 Oct 08 - 09:23 AM

How dare Diane Easby come here and talk common sense, it's outrageous.

eric

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 30 Oct 08 - 09:52 AM

Eighteen million would pay for a lot of folk music on the BBC.

There's far too much folk music on the BBC as it is - you've got 5 and a half hours of it on BBC4 on Friday night. Give me Ross & Brand any day...

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: GUEST,Bob L
Date: 30 Oct 08 - 10:00 AM

"We have no choice as to whether we pay the TV licence or not."

Oh, we do, John. My ex-wife took the telly with her, I chose not to replace it. Haven't paid for a license in 30 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Oct 08 - 10:55 AM

Your parents gave you the perfect forename, Mr. Beard.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Doktor Doktor
Date: 30 Oct 08 - 11:16 AM

Mr Burke - you have it in one.
You missed the point that the whole World's in the Cack up to it's nose hairs.
Politicians dunno what to do.
What better than to make a HUGE fuss over a couple of overpaid, talentless pillocks?
Especially if you're a failed QC with nothing left but to go into politics.
Beats worrying about the depression & keeps it off the front page of the Daily Sport.
There's no hope.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: goatfell
Date: 30 Oct 08 - 12:39 PM

so Diane Easby, you konw Andrew Sach's Granddaughter and messers Brand and Ross very well, then as far as I'm concerend why are these two arseholes doing now, Brand said it was jus silly, and Woss should do that manly thing and resign, without pay.

I'm not getting onto you but these two dickheads and the people that find them 'funny'

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 30 Oct 08 - 01:20 PM

This puzzles me, why is it the job of comedians to 'push the envelope' [ghastly expression]?
There are many people making us laugh, and making a good living, while staying within the bounds of good taste.
Also please note, taste, and decency, are two different things, and while being tasteless is something Woss excels in, being indecent is a step too far.

XG

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 30 Oct 08 - 01:21 PM

Re Russell Brand - "so famous that, I believe, his autobiography has been published!"

Called 'My Booky Wooky', I first saw it in the 'cheap' bin in Asda about 4 weeks after it was published, (not) selling for a quarter of its original price... it's now in paperback and still in the 'cheap' bin.

He could resign with ease, because he's still employed by Channel 4.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Leadfingers
Date: 30 Oct 08 - 02:30 PM

Just heard that 'Woss' is suspended without pay for three months !!

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 30 Oct 08 - 02:35 PM

Well, that's an improvement on suspended on £16,000 a day :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: gnomad
Date: 30 Oct 08 - 02:54 PM

Controller of R2, Lesley Douglas has resigned (BBC story here) as well.

I initially thought this an over-reaction, feeling that she probably had no direct hand in the matter. On later hearing she was responsible for hiring both Brand and Ross (and also that B**** Chris Evans apparently) I'm less certain.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 30 Oct 08 - 03:21 PM

Know them, Goatfell? (Excuse me while I snigger at such a ridiculous name).
No, I know hardly anyone at R2. I worked in television, where I learned very rapidly where a producers' (and ultimately the suits') responsibility for what goes out rests.
Presenters on children's programmes were for ever trying to drop in double entendres. When they made it to air it was the production team that got the blame, not the presenters.
That's why it's right that Lesley Douglas has quit.
She is ultimately responsible for a disastrous decision of one of her staff to allow the spoof voicemail messages to go out on air.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 30 Oct 08 - 03:32 PM

Ah Diane, foot out of mouth now please. Goat Fell
The guy who uses this handle, can see said peak from his window. A good reason for him to use it, don't you think?

XG

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 30 Oct 08 - 04:01 PM

Don't be so familiar. To the baying pack of goats and sheep (Scottish Division) I am Ms Easby. And you needn't think you can change your quarry and go in pursuit of me instead of the two puerile, nincompoop presenters because I have absolutely no agenda. I've nothing whatsoever to do with R2 (as I said before), I've never even heard Russell Brand and I've seen Jonathan Ross vaguely once or twice on television. I was simply explaining, for those clearly unaware, how broadcasting operates. And I'm now heading back upstairs where it's slightly less silly.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: GUEST,Arran
Date: 30 Oct 08 - 04:09 PM

so Diane, you said that you have never heard of Russell Brand and you have Jonathan Ross vaguely once or twice on television you said this " What was said about Manuel's granddaughter was absolutely true. " which means you must know Andrew Sachs's Grnadaughter and Russell Brand very well to print that.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 30 Oct 08 - 04:19 PM

Sigh.

I said I'd never heard Russell Brand ON R2. Because I don't listen to it.I know lots about him. Anyone with any media connection does.
What I know about him and Manuel's granddaughter I know from a broadcast interview with her. As does anyone with half an ear.

Now piss off.

Gone.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 30 Oct 08 - 04:23 PM

Her huff arrived, and she went off in it!

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Mrs.Duck
Date: 30 Oct 08 - 04:43 PM

Whilst I do not condone the behaviour of either Russell Brand or Jonathon Ross in this instance I do feel that it was the duty of the programme editors and producers to stop the offending parts being broadcast. I can't help but feel they were hoping that the resulting publicity would bump up ratings. As far as I understand if the Daily Mail hadn't raked through the muck then the whole incident would have slipped into oblivion and the Sachs family be spared further upset.
I have been a fan of both these men for some time and will regret the loss of them on screen. I have never been offended by any of their shows (although obviously not family viewing). They overstepped the mark this time but if the show had been cut and a personal apology made to Andrew Sachs none of this circus would have ensued and we could have continued to enjoy our Friday night viewing!

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 30 Oct 08 - 05:05 PM

Indeed Mrs Duck. I was just pondering on whether the Daily Mail recruits its stringers and researchers from the Highland wastes, such is the display of mind-numbing inaccuracy and absence of attention to detail. There was a grand total of two whingeings to the duty desk about the voicemail incident on R2 before the muckrakers of Derry Street published their piece and exhorted those with nothing better to do to "complain". It is entirely misplaced and wholly pointless to heap opprobrium onto the presenters (or indeed those who explain what the editorial process is - or ought to be). Had it been followed, the circus would indeed never have come to town.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: GUEST,Rafflesbear
Date: 30 Oct 08 - 05:49 PM

On reading some of the posts it is almost suggested that the 'crime' was to broadcast the phone messages

No - the crime was to make the calls in the first place and that is down to the two individuals

I have never laughed more than I have to the humour of the sadly missed Tommy Cooper

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Oct 08 - 07:14 PM

Tommy Cooper was awful. So are all those in the chain from the initiation of this unpleasant piece of bullying to its broadcast.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Oct 08 - 07:36 PM

""No - the crime was to make the calls in the first place and that is down to the two individuals""

Unless the law has been relaxed, it should still be a CRIMINAL offence to make phone calls with obscene content.

In which case our two presenters are lucky that their next engagement is not in one of HM Prisons.

Richard, do you know whether that particular law has been changed or repealed?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: GUEST,Ralphie
Date: 31 Oct 08 - 03:49 AM

OK
A bit of historical context here.
Many years ago, the BBC decided to outsource about 20% of its output (TV and Radio) to independent companies.

A reasonable idea, as it goes....Talkback productions etc...(who have produced some fine programmes)
But what it meant was that the first editorial defence line was removed.
When Chris Evans took over the breakfast show on Radio 1. It was a bear pit....Zoo radio at its most extreme. Chris managed to keep it on track (just!) but, it was dangerous radio.
As far as I understand the Russell Brand show is produced by his own production company, and the 25 year old producer of the original recording would have found it very hard to question his bosses wish that the Sachs portion of the show be broadcast. Probably in fear of his job. (Which he has undoubtedly lost by now)

This doesn't excuse the Beebs involvement, but it may give people a little more insight.

Personally I'm sad that Lesley Douglas has gone. She was a good friend and colleague for 20 odd years, and single handedly revived the fortunes of what was a (literally) a dying Radio staion.

For all its faults the BBC still produces some of the finest programmes in the world. My anger is directed at the Daily Mail (amongst many other Newspapers) for stirring up this Shit storm.
(See Paul Burkes post above).

Interestingly, since Chris Evans has returned to Radio 2, it's a much better programme....Why? It's a Beeb producer in charge!

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 31 Oct 08 - 04:04 AM

I have to disagree.

The part-privatisation of BBC production led to a general lowering of standards of production - the race to pander to the lowest common denominator (at the cheapest price).

The telephone calls were a nasty piece of bullying. They should not have been made - and of course they should have been taken out before broadcast too. The Beeb should be suing Brand's company on its warranties in the production contract too.

It was pretty shameful that the Beeb did nothing at first, after broadcasting the bullying.

Much as I hate the right-wing Daily Mail, this time its intervention appears to have been necessary to ensure that two oiks got some comeuppance for unacceptable behaviour. Well done the Daily Mail (I never thought I'd say that).

Does anyone else think that the two oiks looked as if they were as high as kites at the time?


It is also very depressing that many of the under-20s and 20-somethings thought that the calls were an acceptable bit of fun. What have we come to?

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 31 Oct 08 - 04:18 AM

Because of the Beeb's initial dithering followed by OTT submission to the baying pack of Daily Mail readers, a young producer has had his career ruined (suits and presenters can always make a comeback).

The BBC will retreat into a cowering conservative backwater daring to transmit nothing but "safe", boring, MOR bilge, Tommy Cooper stylee, so far from the edge that it's landlocked. Hypocrisy-ridden Middle Britain will turn off its channels in droves and turn back to seaside postcard "acceptable" smut.

That's what you wanted. The Dirty Digger will provide.

A sad day for broadcasting. I blame outsourcing, and John Birt in particular.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Paul Burke
Date: 31 Oct 08 - 04:34 AM

According to R4's newspaper review this morning, Richard Littlejohn, writing in the Sun, has called for the privatisation of R1,2 and 3 (and the NHS too). I tried looking for it on their website, but I'd rather duck for apples in an unflushed loo.

Guess who owns the Sun.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 31 Oct 08 - 04:36 AM

Diane baby,
                         You mentioned Kenneth williams, wno did indeed get away with a lot in his day, 'Julian and Sandy, Boner Antiques' etc. But he didn't publicly embarrass an elderly actor. I personally find Russell Brand very funny, but wossy is simply rude and arrogant.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 31 Oct 08 - 04:50 AM

I'm much more concerned about their publicly embarrassing (and indeed trivialising Manuel's young granddaughter. But if the incident hadn't identified real people, it would have been hysterically funny. This, however, is off the point. Procedure ought to, but did not, ensure that the voicemails were not broadcast. If they hadn't been, the circus wouldn't have happened. A lack of tar on the ship leading to the loss of the entire war . . . sort of thing.

(Murdoch fired me from the Sunday Times, I'm very proud to say).

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: GUEST,Ralphie
Date: 31 Oct 08 - 04:58 AM

Richard. I don't think that anybody here has condoned the original incident. I was just trying to outline the way that the BBC works.

Also, The Daily Mail has been trying to get one over the Beeb for years. It finally saw its chance, and pounced.
Boy I bet they are rubbing their hands with glee today.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 31 Oct 08 - 06:09 AM

Why is the BBC trying to attract 'Yoof audiences'?
It is after all not they who pay the licence fee in most cases.
As I said before, we have no choice as to whether we pay the licence fee or not, if we have a TV receiver. On pain of fine or imprisonment, and the gain of a criminal record, to add to our collection.
It's also no good sitting there feeling smug and secure in the fact that you don't have a TV, because the day is not far away when your PC will be counted as a receiver, and you will have to pay a licence fee anyway. I believe this is coming about in Denmark even now.
So what we have then, is an organisation funded by compulsory contributions, who on that basis, don't need to please anybody. After all they will still get the dosh no matter what they put on!
So why pay obscene amounts of money to obscene presenters then?

XG

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Paul Burke
Date: 31 Oct 08 - 06:14 AM

I've told you, JMaK, it's because if they don't show they are attracting audiences, they get their funding cut. It's the price you pay for getting SOME decent stuff broadcast.

If we lose the BBC, well, just browse through the satellite listings to see what TV will be like, and radio will be wall-to-wall Brand and shock jocks. I'm sure our American friends will tell us what public service TV is like there. When I saw it, the program material was mainly appeals for funds so they could keep going.

The BBCs not perfect, but it's better than Fox and Berlusconi.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 31 Oct 08 - 06:36 AM

A young producer has had his career ruined? You lie down with dogs, you get fleas.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 31 Oct 08 - 06:46 AM

There are a number of wrongdoings involved in this story, of varying magnitudes and each deserving to be addressed (and reparations to be be made for it) separately.

a) No doubt one of the most serious is the lapse in the BBC's editorial controls that allowed this to be broadcast. Looks like heads are rolling for this already.

b) And of course, Brand's & Ross' behaviour on a programme intended for broadcasting - albeit after editing - was deplorable. Brand resigned from his 200k job; Ross did not do the same (perhaps the £6 million a year shifted the ethical balance for him...), but he is now suspended without pay for 12 weeks anyway. Still, they could argue that they knew the programme was being recorded, and assumed that some editor would make it all right. BUT...

c) ...the fact remains that the offending messages were left on the voice mail of Mr Sachs. Nothing to do with broadcasting, this is an act that is despicable in and of itself. And as we now know, it was no joke, but Brand was telling the truth about his relationship with Miss Baillie - she admitted it later. But there are lots of kiss-and-tell cads out there, right? Let's just stop a moment and think: Why would anyone do this, not just to Mr Sachs, but to anyone? Is it out of intention to be funny? Or is it simply the malicious, vicious, intentionally hurtful action that it appears to be? And never mind about Mr Sachs, why should anyone receiving such a message not go straight to the perpetrator's home and kick seven shades of shit out of him?

d) Also, for the kiss-and-tell act itself, in my book Brand deserves to have his willy grow hairy warts. But that's just me.

Nevertheless there is a real danger of this story ending up hurting the BBC and British comedy, because I do agree that comedians need to have the freedom to live near the edge. The best ones manage to keep the balance, teetering over but never quite falling into the poo. They need to have theirminders, editors, production teams etc, to save them if they slip up - but the edge is where we want them.

A sideshow to all this of course is why are Ross and Brand in such demand; a BBC rep admitted it on Radio 4 today - it is all part of the Beeb's attempt to get down, to be with it, to be relevant to the youngsters (most of whom did not find this and other similar episodes distasteful). BUT the BBC is not just a commercial organisation that needs to pander to all the customer's whims - it has a role to entertain, but also to educate, to help civilise society. When its efforts to be "relevant" take it away from those aims, it should have a serious re-think.

And finally: Brand himself said in his apology "I was caught up in the moment"... Yes, sure, we can see how this can happen. But I argue the main underlying cause is that increasingly, our "celebs" are believing their own advertising. Because we tell them they are good, they think that they really are. And THAT is dangerous for anyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 31 Oct 08 - 07:26 AM

Some of those defending Ross and Brand make the point that the matter would have slipped quietly into history+ without the Daily Mail's intervention. They fail to acknowledge that this intervention came only after (and no doubt because) representations on behalf of Sachs had failed to extract an apology. The BBC could not have handled the whole matter more badly, but still I am with Paul Burke: I would rather have the Beeb than Murdoch. In fact I go farther: I would rather have our newspapers controlled by the government of the day than by Murdoch. Or I would if governments were capable of acting independently of Murdoch.

In most respects the Ross and Brand apologists make valid points and, notwithstanding my personal unease about Brand in particular, I have allowed myself to be persuaded into their corner.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: GUEST,Ralphie
Date: 31 Oct 08 - 07:31 AM

Paul Burke is quite right.
It's all about ratings.
I took redundancy from the Beeb after 33 years 2 years ago.
The Charter renewal was coming up, (as it does every 10 years or so), and the Beeb had to demonstrate to the government that they were slimming down....so another 15% job losses.
So I took the Kings shilling.

The point of outsourcing programme makers to independent companies actually saved money for the BBC. (No In House studio/staff time involved etc).
The problem was that some (not all) of the independent companies weren't very good.
As you sow, so shall ye reap.
Heres an example of how it should have worked.(True Story)
A well known presenter had lost his contract, and he came in with a 4 page statement as to his feelings for the pre-record of his final prog.
The Producer and I read it, and tore it up, saying that if said presenter wanted to commit professional suicide on air, we wouldn't allow it to happen.
He realised his folly when the red mist subsided.
The cold light of day scenario so to speak. And he was very grateful to us in hindsight.
The Prod and I had been around several BBC blocks for over 70 years collectively, and the warning signs flashed instantly. Job done. No consequences. No fallout.
With a young eager Production company trying to break into the competetive world of broadcasting, it's Oh so easy to lose the plot, which is what happened here IMHO.

I still blame the Mail for stoking the boilers on this one.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: GUEST,Ralphie
Date: 31 Oct 08 - 07:38 AM

In no way am I defending what happened. I have just been trying to explain what it is like on the other side of the wall!

But, I will re-iterate the loss of Lesley Douglas is a real shame.
Even Brand has said so!!

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: greg stephens
Date: 31 Oct 08 - 07:55 AM

Couple of persdonal opinions. I don't blame the Mail for stoking up things. People complained as and when they heard about it. It was shocking and disgusting, but obviously very few people knew about the programme to start with. It's like a murder...often takes a while for it to be discovered, but when it is, most people disapprove.
Secondly, I watched to Russel Brand's comedy programme on Channel 4 last night. Great. Very funny, very dirty. Vastly enjoyed it. Jonathan Ross, on the other hand, is a thoroughly nasty bit of work, as five minute's viewing on one of his programme's would, I should hope, convince anyone.
As to his "heartfelt" apology(and Brand's)....Oh yes? Sure they behaved badly in the heat of the moment. But they then went on to think about it, sleep on it, figured out the consequences. Then they broadcast it.I imagine they thought it was amusing and groundbreaking, not to mention boundary-pushing (something we are meant to worship, apparently).That seems to me to prove that the apologies were totally insincere, and purely designed to try to minimise the personal consequences for themselves.
    I used to snigger myself into insensibilty at the Derek and Clive recordings. Doesn't mean I wanted them to perform at the vicarage teaparty. There's a time and a place for everything.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: GUEST,Rafflesbear
Date: 31 Oct 08 - 08:30 AM

One of the things that makes people react to this so strongly when they hear about it from whatever source is their love of Andrew Sachs' as a distinguished actor and of his portrayal of Manuel in particular. To the best of my knowledge he has managed to conduct his career without offending others

His dignity when interviewed and lack of spite makes us be outraged on his behalf - "Andrew, you keep your dignity, we shall do the messy business of getting your justice for you"

If the call had been made by Jonathan Ross and left on the voicemail of Russell Brand we really wouldn't care would we?

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: GUEST,Ralphie
Date: 31 Oct 08 - 08:31 AM

Another story.
I used to work with Chris Morris (The Day Today, Brass Eye, Blue Jam etc)
Because of the nature of his programmes for Radio 1. The controller insisted on vetting it the day before Tx.
Fair enough you might think.
Having achieved management approval, Chris would then spend several hours inserting extra material into the prog. Actually the new bits weren't that bad, obscene or anything like that, but, he was pushing the limits of responsibilty.
His shows were mainly in the middle of the night, so nobody heard them anyway!!
Rogue presenters will always subvert the boundaries when they can.

Does anyone remember the Drug TV edition of Brass Eye, when he got several luminaries...Manning, Edmonds etc to pontificate on the dangers of taking "Cake"

Hilarious and squirmy too.

And then, the story of a "Round the Horn" script (1950's Radio show)
Which had a page of "Polari" in it (A sort of underground gay patois)

After perusal by a BBC executive it came back with the note, "I can see nothing wrong with this script"
But it was filthy!!! Hugh Janus, Hugh Jampton, etc....Vada those lallies.

I very much doubt the Brand and Ross thought anything immediately after the shows recording. Probably went to a club or something. Dunno. Leaving it to their production team to do the edit.
Which was done badly, obviously.

Ah Well water under the bridge now.
Heads have rolled. With no doubt more to follow

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: GUEST,Edthefolkie
Date: 31 Oct 08 - 08:43 AM

I've got to say that Woss seems to want it both ways, fnarr, fnarr.

On the one hand he enjoys dishing it out - but as some other posters pointed out, he's pretty quick at waving writs if anybody has a go at him.

I happened to pass Leicester Square a few years ago and watched the celebs leaving a premiere, worshipped by a baying mob. Woss, wife and kids could hardly walk under the weight of expensive freebies presented to them as a thank you for gracing the cinema with their presence. Yeah, edgy, right.

Anyway, what's all this Young Turk stuff - Woss is 47 and Brand is 33 for Pete's sake!

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: greg stephens
Date: 31 Oct 08 - 09:17 AM

Ralphie: sure they probably went off to a club after recording, or whatever. Why not? But I don't think the programme went out the next morning, did it? All I was aying was, if they really genuinely felt any contrition, they had loads of time to edit out whatever it was they felt contrite about. The fact is, they didn't do so. (Mind you, we haven't heard the raw tapes, have we? Who knows what they said originally?)

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Mr Red
Date: 31 Oct 08 - 09:27 AM

This furore is as much about standards in broadcasting as it is about the protagonists and the victims.

You try telling young people that...................

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 31 Oct 08 - 09:51 AM

Ralphie, you are wearing blinkers. ANY national newspaper these days (except the FT and the Morning Star) would run the story if it heard that a household-name actor had failed to get a response to a complaint about behaviour such as that of Ross and Brand - especially where such behaviour had actually been broadcast. And why not?

The BBC justified its failure to respond with the argument that "no-one picked up the email." LOL. Blame this failure, and not the Daily Mail, for bringing on the storm. The Beeb is about as responsive as the central nervous system of a dinosaur, and for an organisation whose business is communication, this is farcical.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: goatfell
Date: 31 Oct 08 - 11:13 AM

why doesn't the senior staff have back bone and guts just to sack Jonathon Ross instead giving him a slap on the wrist, I mean if that happened at one elses work they would get the sack so why not him?

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: GUEST,Ralphie
Date: 31 Oct 08 - 11:17 AM

No. No Blinkers here.
The whole point is that the BBC, having made an appalling mistake (which it was, undoubtedly, Amazing that it hadn't happened years ago, judging by my archive. I could tell stories that would make your hair curl!).The Mail on Sunday had some stringer monitoring programmes etc. just waiting to pounce. And when they found something, they did.
Yes, If it had been the Sun Star Mirror, they would have done the same.
And of course all these tabloids are so squeaky clean are they? Ever heard of Page 3??
And Greg. It's unlikely that the pair of them even remember recording the damn piece.
They would have trusted their editors to make it "Fit for Broadcast"

Stupid Boys.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 31 Oct 08 - 12:20 PM

Their noses will fall off (IMHO)

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 31 Oct 08 - 02:45 PM

Jeremy Hardy, said to be standing in for two comics who were unexpectedly unavailable for R4's News Quiz, has just uttered what I hope (but very much doubt) will be the last words on the subject:

"I don't give a flying brief relationship what they said . . . "

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Cllr
Date: 31 Oct 08 - 03:38 PM

Diane is absolutly right in her comments about editorial process.

and in a prescient way Brand confirms the nature of the beast in his autbiography "My booky wook" in this excerpt Brand is saying how a freind told him to be careful of those who encouraged him to be at the edge of his trade.

"This is how he (karl theobald)charecterised the ensuing dynamic
'Oh look at him go. Wow! He's like a runaway train. Go on Russel, wooh! Tear it up. He's wild he's dangerous! He's unstoppable!...He's done what? Sorry Russell you're fired.'"

this was written last year ago. I don't condone in anyway what they did but as Diane said ealier (hope you dont mind but i think it worth repeating

"That the recording was referred up for a decision on whether to transmit was correct.
The big mistake was that remarks which would be a betrayal of confidence if just bandied about the pub, let alone spoken to the nation, were passed for broadcast.
It's whoever let it go out that should be fired for demonstrating a total lack of common sense or humanity."

also brilliant bit of analysis from Paul Burke .
Cllr

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 31 Oct 08 - 03:46 PM

It would appear from tonight's news, that Lesley Douglas was aware of the content of the show, before it was broadcast.
Seems like her going was not unnecessary after all.

XG

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Acorn4
Date: 31 Oct 08 - 03:49 PM

Did either or both of these two pillocks go to a public school?

I suspect so as they've portrayed one of the main symptoms -never being able to grow up!

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: GUEST,Ralphie
Date: 31 Oct 08 - 05:13 PM

Well Jon MacK
If what you say is true I would be very very surprised!
Lets just see what the report says and not speculate, shall we?

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 31 Oct 08 - 05:24 PM

Ross was apparently educated at Norlington School For Boys, a single-sex comprehensive school located in the borough of Waltham Forest in East London, England.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 31 Oct 08 - 05:38 PM

Russell Brand appears to have attended Grays comprehensive school, although I have found some reports of his having been expelled from several schools.

I have never thought him funny but some of the stuff one finds by searching makes him sound a very very unpleasant person.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Acorn4
Date: 31 Oct 08 - 06:25 PM

In which case, Richard, I stand corrected.

It might just be an ordinary case of "mouth open whilst brain is out of gear".

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 31 Oct 08 - 08:54 PM

These two guys are an instant turn off for me. I was slightly more interested in Brand when he said he got the title of his book from The Clockwork Orange, but generally I see them and switch the channel.

Nevertheless I have listened to the broadcast and can't really see what has triggered this reaction. i can only assume there lots of pissed off people like me, whose voices are ignored and the BBC goes on booking vacuous gits like these two - and that these lots of disenchanted peole saw a chance to stick one on two colossal well paid bores.

the establishment is not so easily frustrated - they'll be back.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Oct 08 - 09:44 PM

From a piece by Alexander Chancellor in the Guardian:

"A point regularly made by people who think that the kerfuffle about Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross has been grossly overblown is that only older people are feeling outraged. The young, they say, can't imagine what all the fuss is about, because for them the essence of comedy is to shock and insult.

"Call me old-fashioned, but I would argue that this very fact, if true, justifies the vast media coverage of the affair. For one of its most alarming aspects has been the claim that young people find what happened on Brand's Radio 2 show perfectly acceptable. How could anyone find it acceptable that obscene telephone calls made to a harmless old man should be broadcast against his will to millions of radio listeners?"

That seems to me to sum up the only really significant aspect of this rather daft story. I was listening to some talk about this on the radio, and the speaker was saying that after all these blokes were employed in order to be offensive, because it had been decided that that was what was needed by the BBC. They were just doing what they were paid to do.

That seems fair enough. So far as this particular mess-up was concerned, the blame primarily lies on whoever took the responsibility of approving it for broadcasting. But more important is the blame on whoever decided that the job of comedians ought to be to set out to be as vicious and nasty as possible. Cruelty is not funny.

If a pitbull terrier savages some passer-by, you don't blame the dog, you blame the owner. It's just hard luck on the dog.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: GUEST,Rafflesbear
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 03:48 AM

If a pitbull terrier savages some passer by it's funny and should be on BBC television - ok it's edgy and pushing the boundaries of comedy but it's funny in the same way as someone slipping on a banana skin

If you can't see that then you must be an old fuddy-duddy and certainly over 21

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 04:46 AM

Comedy began to change in the 80s. It stopped being 'funny' and started to shock. Ben Elton and his generation started pushing the boundaries. Crude humour was born. It became more and more sexually explicit, interspersed with swear words at every given opportunity. Then it became sexually explicit and personal. No-one was spared, everyone was fair game.

Unfortunately, it started to trickle out into society. The playground became a place of cruel taunts. The children picked up on the vast amount of sexual content in 'humour' arond them, and the 'cruelty' as well.

And so, a generation or two was raised that thought this was normal.

They were also surrounded by sexually explicit things, in the kids magazines, in the toys they played with, in the music they listened to.

The little girls wanted to be porn stars when they grew up, and the little boys wanted them to be that as well, seeing women as just sexual objects.

By their own volition, many women have become the object of some pretty weird fantasies. but they've been raised to think that's 'normal'. Hell, even in our supermarkets we now have to buy our food next to magazines such as 'Nuts' or 'Zoo' or 'Loaded' because, hey, they're Lad's Magazines so it's OK. Really????? They take women back 40 years or more, to nothing more than meat.

Along with the cruding up of our society, went the dumbing down, and the generations who were saturated in sex never asked questions, they only ever 'accepted' what was poured down on them.

As time went by, they became totally de-sensitised, many of them drunk out of their heads for most of the week, as they tried to stagger through a world that had ceased to care, ceased to be gentle, kind, thoughtful, compassionate or empathetic. Along with getting drunk out of their skulls every weekend, and often during the week too, they had sex on the streets, with anyone who was around. Yup, really. Still, at least they didn't have to remember it all in the morning, as they groggily took their Morning After Pill.

The true comedians, those with intelligence, wit, humour and compassion, were cast aside, as the new breed of 'in yer face louts' were welcomed aboard by every agent, every radio station, every TV programme who paid them vast amounts to continue the dumbing down process.

The BBC didn't want to miss out on this new happening. They weren't going to be left behind in this rush to view The Emperor's New Clothes. Hell no. And so, they not only hired two of the most outrageous so-called 'comedians' around, but they paid them huge salaries too. One of them they decided to completely lose their marbles over and paid him £18,000.000 of OUR money, so that he could sit in their studio and drag down the minds of those who listened, ever further, as he talked of fucking and other bodily functions. Sometimes he'd tell his TV guests that he'd like to fuck them after the show.

So, that's OK then.

!!!????????!!!

And we all said *nothing*, most laughed, maybe a little shocked, but heck, no-one wanted to be that person who stepped out from the parade, as The Emperor walked by in his New Clothes, no-one wanted to point out the glaringly obvious, because they'd be told they were a Daily Mail Reader, a bigot, a killjoy, a Facist etc. etc. etc..

Tell me, if I, as a woman, behaved like these two men, would the BBC have paid me £18,000.000?

If I had sat in front of a microphone and told people who I'd *****'d, when and where, (preferably in public toilets, because hey, that's the new, cool place to be ******'d, apparently, according to Russell)...would anyone have said anything?

Or, would I have been labelled the biggest slut going?


What worries me most in all of this, is not just Lesley Douglas's blind, idiotic, outrageous, incompetent behaviour in daring to give Jonathan Ross £18 MILLION POUNDS of OUR money ....

.....but more than that, it is the way that two generations of younger people have now been sexually 'groomed' to accept that *nothing* is unacceptable, and that the best thing a woman can be is a porn star, or a scantily clad boobs-and-bums celebrity, and that young men seem to want them to be nothing more than that, thinking that it's OK to talk about the woman you were with last night as the latest person you f******'d, and nothing else.

There is a terrible emptiness inside so many of our young people, who know nothing of love, of being treasured, of knowing the soul of someone, of having self-respect, no.....that has been turned into a bodily function, which is taken care of in the most quick, dispassionate, crude and non-commital way possible..then talked about in detail with their mates, or they can tune in to TV or Radio and watch/hear it being discussed there.

Lesley Douglas, at least, has resigned.
Russell Brand, at least, has resigned. But what of Jonathan Ross? The BBC's Mega Million Crude Bomb is still there, still hanging on to his millions, still being able to know that in a few months time, he'll be back to earning £16,000 A DAY from the BBC alone, excluding all his other earnings.

Personally, I think, as a nation, we should take every TV set in the land to our nearest Bonfire Night Fires, throw them on top and let the BBC cease to have our money once and for all.

I've been sickened by these huge salaries for a long, long time. It is so deeply wrong, unjustifiably wrong.

More than that though, is the fact that the BBC, once admired around the world, has jumped on the Disturbing Bandwagon of those who want to 'groom' our children to be sexual beings, and nothing else.

It is time to Educate Up, to restore pride back into women, to remove the poles from the dancing floors, to get men to see that we're not here purely to be f****** over the settee (as I think these two men mentioned on their show)...and that women themselves start to use their brains again, and realise they are far, far more than bums and boobs to be shaken, not stirred.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 04:53 AM

Sorry, I pressed submit, instead of preview...

The short version of that is this:

We owe it to our children, and grandchildren, to bring integrity back into many areas of life.

And THAT is what all of this is about, for me.

The BBC Emperor has finally had his New Clothes exposed by the people in the crowd who have dared to stand up and tell him.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: GUEST,Doc John
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 07:20 AM

Offensive certainly but to me the main problem was that it just wasn't funny unlike, say, Kenneth Williams who did say some outrageous - but very funny - things. Shimrod's comment on Ross being a Parkie with and without certain attributes sounds very true to me; I'll be glad to see the back of him as well one day and his phoney professional Yorkshireman act. (Read Wogan - professional Irishman, Cilla Black - professional Scouser etc). I've met plenty of people at least equally funny in factories and building sites. A positive thought is that when they've gone we won't have to watch them endlessly as their only talent was self promotion.
Are things offensive in themselves or is it people who are offended? There was a clip on Today this morning about the BBC banning, for example, jokes about lavatories and references to baskets in the 50's. I don't think any of us would like to see those days return. I'm glad Ms Douglas has gone too: she got rid of Jimmy Young etc and brought in the likes of Chris Evans as well as Ross; in effect turned Radio 2 into Radio 1, when Radio 1 was there already. The problem seemed to be that a young (25) and lowly producer was in charge of the programme and how could he challenge Ross, a 'major star' and hired by Ms Douglas too. Lions led by donkeys, perhaps.
Doc John

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 07:35 AM

The "young and lowly" producer was an employee of the outsourced production company, not the BBC, a point that has already been dealt with much higher up. The chain of command (oops sorry for mention of lavatories) is thus unlinked, as it were, and thereon problems hang.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 07:52 AM

Certainly it should never have been broadcast. Also, leaving messages like that on someone else's phone is wrong.

The money that these presenters were being paid is another issue for me. Extortionate salaries like that are obscene and should be discouraged. I've watched the clip on youtube and to me there does not appear (JMO) to have been much preparation, planning or skill (from the two presenters) in what took place to warrant such vast amounts of money. It almost looks as if they just turned up and did anything, said anything from the top of their heads with little thought. There wasn't any entertainment value there for me and I actually have enjoyed some of their work previously. It really is ridiculous that anybody should be paid vast amounts for that.

What happens to other people normally involved in Jonathan Ross's shows like the "4 Poofs and a Piano" during this 3 months suspension? Presumably they are on contracts and will still get paid since it was none of their doing?

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 07:57 AM

Mind you I have only seen the youtube clips, I haven't heard the whole programme, there may have been some good stuff that I have missed.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: GUEST,Doc John
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 08:11 AM

Thanks for putting me right, Diane, I missed that bit.
Two other problems seem to be the obsession with the ratings war and arbitary standards.
Ross is employed and paid so highly 'because he's popular' and brings in the viewers and listeners. But is he so because we are told he is? I'm sure 'Catters of a certain age will remember being 'told' we, as teenagers, should like Tommy Steele when we (= 'caters) prefered Big Bill.
I think it was John Humphryes who argued that it is 'self evident' that the BBC should not screen pornography. Why? Pornography 'is very popular' although in this case we are not told to like it and it is obviously off BBC limits. I've no objection to paying a licence fee if the BBC wants to show pornography as long as it is not on every channel all the time, like snooker used to be. Oh I forgot, the children; always mention them if we can't find an agument against something. I'm sure executions would be popular with Daily Mail readers but then that's off my limit.
Doc John

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Acorn4
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 08:17 AM

Isn't it strange that Noel Edmonds now comes across as quite a nice bloke!

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 08:37 AM

Bring back Mr Blobby !!

Yaaaay

XG

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Leadfingers
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 09:57 AM

At least , Noel Edmonds was prepared to be 'Gotcha'd by HIS victims unlike Wossie and the like who are too ready with Writs against anyone who has a go at them !

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Leadfingers
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 09:57 AM

And 100

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: GUEST,J.Woss
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 10:44 AM

I weally have had enough of this your cwiticism of me and my pwogwammes. Me, Wussell Bwand and all the other "alternatives to comedy" have been twying for ages to bwing to a wider public a level of humour in keeping with today`s stweet wise listener culture. If that means speaking about lavatorwial activities, my wife`s pwefewrence for my neighbour`s manhood, using foul language because some childwen, without it, would not understand me asking pwetty women to wemove their knickers and pwance round my the set of my television show then that is what I wegard as my wole. Should this un-wawwanted carping continue, especially observations about my £18,000,000 pay and pwying into my pwivate life I shall wesort to Sue,Gwabbitt and Wun.

And Walphie, I take issue wegarding Chwis Evans. I find him an obnoxoius, odius pwesenter who put his colours up the mast on a t.v. pwogwamme called, I think, "TFIF". Nothing has changed since those days and I still hear in him a desire to talk dirty to the ladies on his show. Thank goodness Sally Twaffic and Foxy have the gwace to deflect it.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: goatfell
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 11:00 AM

I heard someone say that comedians now are about as funny as a sore throat, and I agree with that, I remember a time comedians where funny not now, al though some are but not all and those two are not funny

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: greg stephens
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 11:28 AM

I notice two contributors to this thread who, I seem to recall, have in their time been banned from the BBC Radio 2 folk and acoustic listeners' forum. (I forget its exact title, but it's something like that).
Intriguing, isn't it, that the BBC manages to employ people to vet the contents of that forum, and delete posts and ban offensive letter-writers? Whose sins, incidentally, were mainly excessive adulation, or excessive dislike, of young Mr Lakeman. Yet the head of the channel, a 45-year old highly paid professional, was unable to assess Jonathan Ross' "he ****ed your granddaughter" comment as unsuitable for broadcasting...until it was pointed out forcibly to her by 35,0000 Disgusted from Tunbridge Wells.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 11:35 AM

Nice one Greg.

XG

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: GUEST,Doc John
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 11:49 AM

Well said, Greg. The thought of privatising the BBC - no matter what its faults and as many would like - would make things worse. Virgin-BBC or Fox-BBC fills me with horror. We need a sort of People's Parliament to oversee it with members nominated from licence payers by various bodies. I'm sure the Mudcat would nominate a member or two

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 12:12 PM

Interesting article on the subject.

XG

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 12:16 PM

Of course privatising the BBC would make things worse.

A main reason for being angry about this affair is that the people responsible - mainly those in the BBC who failed to stop this stuff going out, and also the people who have encouraged this approach to broadcasting, have damaged the BBC and threatened its future and have given ammunition to people who hate the whole idea of public service broadcasting free from advertisements.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: goatfell
Date: 02 Nov 08 - 11:01 AM

Australian telvision and American television when watching them you don't pay a licence but I cna't speak about American telly but Australian Telly is crap, for example there was this programme on called Sale of the Centuary in the paper t was on from 8pm to 8:30pm and my father who was out there with me timmed to programme the programme itself lasted 8 minutes the Adverts for 22 mins.

so that is why we in Briitian have kept the telly lienece .

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: KEVINOAF
Date: 05 Nov 08 - 06:40 AM

ACT 2- ENTER CLARKSON
THE BEEB HAS AN UNLIMMITTED SUPPLY OF ARSEHOLES
time to say good-night aunty

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 05 Nov 08 - 08:09 AM

I think Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand are hilarious, but I wouldn't want anyone ringing my granny and telling her I'd shagged them, regardless of whether it was true, or whether it was going to be nationally broadcast. That's because she was a very nice old lady who would have been very upset by such a phone call. As most grannies are and would be.

I missed all the furore as I was out of the country (being diverted by proper news like the American election), but I can't believe that Gordon Brown was moved to comment while the economy continued to implode. Has anyone ever seen the South Park movie? "Look over there!"

Having read what has been said here, it does sound like the BBC is at least as responsible as the presenters themselves for the debacle. It was a dumb stunt and it went too far, and Beeb execs or the production company should have pulled the broadcast.

Lots of people here seem to think that this is a victory for common sense, because they don't like the sort of humour purveyed by Brand and Ross. Someone even suggested that both are relative newcomers, Ross being around for 5 or 6 years and Brand since February. Far be it from me to suggest that some Mudcatters might be a bit out of touch, but I first tried to book Russell Brand for a venue about 4 years ago, and Jonathan Ross was on the telly when I first arrived in Britain 18 years ago.

Everyone has people they don't find funny. Personally, if this had happened to Jeremy Clarkson or Chris Moyles (both of whom really are nasty pieces of work, IMHO) I'd probably be rubbing my hands with glee. But I would defend anyone else's right to listen to their crass outpourings any day, because censorship is a scary thing.


Ralphie, I LOVE Chris Morris. The Day Today and On the Hour were two of the best programmes ever broadcast by the BBC. The Cake episode of Brass Eye was sheer brilliance, as was the one on paedophilia. The scary thing about the latter was the public response. The Daily Mail brigade were too busy foaming at the mouth to realise that it is the tabloid frenzy and knee-jerk reactions to such taboo subjects which were being parodied, rather than the thing itself.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: goatfell
Date: 05 Nov 08 - 11:27 AM

well I don't find the subject of paedophilia funny, but there you go. if you find a man/woman sexually abusing a child funny then what does that say about you.
and I don't read the daily mail. however I find some of the things that Brass eye did was funny but not the one about paedophilia because I was sexaully abused and Idon't find that funny.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: goatfell
Date: 05 Nov 08 - 11:31 AM

to add to it and this is from a woman that found Bernard Manning offenceive

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 05 Nov 08 - 12:30 PM

Well, I will definitely be watching this if it happens.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 05 Nov 08 - 02:13 PM

Goatfell/Arran, you are falling into the trap. I am a mother myself. The programme was not about paedophilia being funny. It was about the reactionary responses of the media who whip up feeding frenzies around certasin issues, and the many members of the public who get sucked in, such as the time an illiterate mob (in Bristol, was it?) misguidedly hunted down a paediatrician.

And yes, I do find Bernard Manning far more offensive than Chris Morris. Chris Morris isn't a racist.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 06 Nov 08 - 05:28 AM

Now we read that Georgina Baillie's human rights were breached! She indicated in an interview this week that even she is fed up with it all now.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 06 Nov 08 - 08:35 AM

Chris Morris didn't find paedophilia funny! He satirised the media's treatment of it. Read the thread please.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 06 Nov 08 - 09:14 AM

No, it doesn't! To satirise something (not satirised) means using humour to register disapproval of it.

From the on-line Webster's:
transitive verb
: to censure or ridicule by means of satire


Do you know what censure means? And it still remains that the press and not the subject of paedophilia was the object of the satire.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 06 Nov 08 - 10:07 AM

Russell Brand & Jonathan Ross to be 'Burned at Stake'

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 06 Nov 08 - 11:00 AM

Perhaps what Goat Fell is getting at, and I tend to agree with him, is that there are some subjects which are unsuitable as a subject for comedy.
There is a sort of superciliousness about those who think they can sort out, or point out, other people's attitudes, by mocking them.
This leads to an equally condescending attitude amongst those who like to think of themselves as sophisticated enough to 'Get the joke'
It is unkind, and seems to suppose that those who don't get it, or are the subjects of said comedy, are thick.

XG

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: goatfell
Date: 06 Nov 08 - 11:37 AM

Thank you John,

But watch out John or they will turn on you as they have done with me in the past, becuase they can't face the truth, so they will change the subject or they just won't answer you.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: goatfell
Date: 06 Nov 08 - 11:41 AM

At lest I can say my name properly

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: goatfell
Date: 06 Nov 08 - 12:10 PM

they just don't like taking the own Medicine, they can give it out but they can't take it on the chin some of them, so best thing to do is just ignore them.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 06 Nov 08 - 12:23 PM

Jonathan Ross has still filmed a celebrity edition of The Apprentice despite his suspension. He wasn't paid, it won't be screened until March and it is for charity.

However, it does seem to make the suspension a bit of a joke!

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: goatfell
Date: 06 Nov 08 - 12:33 PM

BIG DEAL, so what! he should of be9ing sacked, and not just giving a wee tap on on the wrists and then told not be a silly boy again.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 06 Nov 08 - 12:45 PM

I think many people would have been happier if he had been sacked. My feelings are that a suspension is a suspension and he should not have been allowed back into the BBC for 12 weeks even if it is unpaid and for charity.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: GUEST,collage
Date: 06 Nov 08 - 01:04 PM

He should resigned, because, he is sending out the wrong message by thinking it was right to be rude and crude and be nasty and to send these stupid thick phone calls and yet people find it funny just be rude and crude and just be thick all time, I just hope that he doesn't get any type of job again anywhere and all his millons will go to other people intead of him, see what I mean John they have changed the subject (Chris Morris)

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: GUEST,collage
Date: 06 Nov 08 - 01:12 PM

yes but a suspension means that he's still will be in work when it's over and he's still getting paid with so many millions of pounds in his bank.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: GUEST,Doc John
Date: 06 Nov 08 - 03:07 PM

Today I heard there have been complaints about Jeremy Clarkson making a joke about lorry drivers being serial woman killers: 'change gear, check mirror, change gear, kill someone, check mirror etc.' Although he is a well known loud-mouth, the point is he was making fun of the steriotype of lorry drivers not serial killing. However I wish P------- lorry drivers would check their mirrors!
It's rather like the old Alf Garnett programmes which some now regards as racist: they were mocking the silliness of racism.
Ross won't resign: the money (ours) is too good.
Doc John

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 06 Nov 08 - 03:34 PM

So the stereotypical lorry driver goes about murdering prostitutes does he.
Just how many actual lorry driving prostitute murderers does it take for it to be described as stereotypical of the occupation?
More or less than one?
I wish P------- car drivers would realise how difficult it is to see them, and how much space lorries need to manoeuvre.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 06 Nov 08 - 05:10 PM

It seems that Jeremy Clarkson was referring to the five women killed by lorry driver Steve Wright. Well, each of those women was once a little girl...and they've ended up not only dead, but as the butt of some joke?

Seems many of our lorry drivers are fuming, and I can understand why.
It wasn't funny. It wasn't funny from the lorry drivers point of view, and it wasn't funny for the relatives of those who lost their lives. But the BBC will spin it, of course. They're already saying that they *only* had 200 complaints immediately after the programme, then another 300 or so later on, which is oooh, hardly anything at all. ??????

Jeremy Clarkson, is, in my opinion, an arrogant prat. I'm not into political correctness, hell it's caused many problems, and I've a great sense of humour, but this man is another who doesn't give a damn, who believes that he can say whatever he wants, about whomsoever he wants, whenever he wants, and he gets paid (probably again, a vast amount) by the BBC for saying it. There are things you can joke about, and things you can't. He needs to learn the difference.

Here's a very different view, from Reg Meuross, of one of those five women who were so brutally murdered. Perhaps Jeremy Clarkson would care to read the words and think about all those concerned in these horrific murders....and how almost every decent lorry driver in the land must have felt such rage over these killings.

He actually wrote this beautiful song after watching a programme where a mother talked about her daughter, who was a prostitute, because he was so touched by the total unconditional love from the mother of this young woman. When you see him sing it live, he'll make you feel the tenderness she has for this child of hers, maybe a little of her bewilderment too, but she loves her daughter beyond anything else in the world, and will always be there for her, no matter what. The incredibly tender way he sings it, the words 'she' says, well the tears aren't far away, particularly when you realise that just a short while later, this daughter whom she loved so dearly, actually became one of those five women who were murdered.


From his wonderful 'Dragonfly' CD:

"I wrote this song in 2006, after watching a programme in which a mother talked about her daughter, who was later to become one of the 5 murdered Suffolk prostitutes"

'Until I Hold You Once Again' by Reg Meuross

"It's time to put your red dress on
See how beautiful you are
Now the night is almost gone
You will be my falling star
And as the shadows turn to gold
And our tears to falling rain
Leave a promise I can hold
Until I hold you once again

I watch you brush your yellow hair
Run your fingers through the sun
My body aches to touch you there
Time is short and you must run
I know that others see your face
The eyes and mouth that I adore
I wish that they could take my place
Until I hold you close once more

A mother's arms are safe and sure
A mother's arms are soft and pure
This kind of love, no man will know
I'll still love you when you go

I know you've got your work to do
There's broken hearts for you to mend
I know the pain that men go through
And those who only need a friend
And when you close that hotel door
What happens there I'll never ask
I will only miss you more
Until I hold you once again"

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: goatfell
Date: 07 Nov 08 - 06:56 AM

Jonathon Ross, Russel Brand and Jeremy Clarkson are just prats but there are people find the stuff that they say is funny, along with friends.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 07 Nov 08 - 07:18 AM

Those are beautiful words in the Reg Meuross song. I don't suppose there is a sample anywhere on the internet by any chance ............. keeping my fingers crossed :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: goatfell
Date: 07 Nov 08 - 07:25 AM

changed the subject

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 07 Nov 08 - 07:32 AM

Goatfell, I am responding to Lizzie's post.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: goatfell
Date: 07 Nov 08 - 10:26 AM

Did I mention you eanjay I don't think so, so why tell me eanjay, I know you were responding to Lizzie's post, so why are you angry at me.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: goatfell
Date: 07 Nov 08 - 10:28 AM

a bit grumpy i think

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: goatfell
Date: 07 Nov 08 - 10:31 AM

oh and 'changed the subject' could apply to anyone on this post.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 07 Nov 08 - 10:59 AM

Conversing with ones self, An early indicator of a delusion.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: GUEST,Doc John
Date: 07 Nov 08 - 04:48 PM

The stereotype is a common UK one and has nothing to do with the Ipswitch murders. Like most stereotypes it has little or even no basis in fact and can be funny or offensive depending on your view point. The P--- was a nationality not a swearword and not meant to apply to lorry drivers in general whose skill amazes me sometimes; I'm afraid drivers from that part of the world do have a poor reputation which unfortunately seems to be justified.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 07 Nov 08 - 05:50 PM

"Those are beautiful words in the Reg Meuross song. I don't suppose there is a sample anywhere on the internet by any chance ............. keeping my fingers crossed :-)"

Sorry, eanjay, but not so far. There's Reg's myspace page, which you know about already, although he does change the songs on there quite often....and his main site..and this one, which I've just found, which contains all the songs from his great 'Short Stories' CD, including 'The Poacher' which is the one he played with Martin Carthy at Sidmouth. They folk-rocked together! :0)

Tracks from 'Short Stories'

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Nov 08 - 07:48 PM

The stereotype is a common UK one and has nothing to do with the Ipswich murders.

I'd question whether there is a widespread stereotype about lorry-drivers as murderers.   If anything the stereotype of lorry-drivers is pretty favourable - in contrast to that for white-van drivers, and even they aren't thought of as murderers.
...............
Here's Reg Meuross on YouTube singing his song about his father, Good With His Hands. Hell of a song too.

Worth a million Jonathan Rosses and Russell Brands...

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 08 Nov 08 - 07:06 AM

Thanks for the Reg Meuross links; good with his hands is a wonderful song.

Anybody who wants to "exact revenge" on Jonathan Ross, Russell Brand or Jeremy Clarkson can always buy the new computer games that are out. A lot of people seem to be cashing in on all of this!

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 08 Nov 08 - 07:08 AM

Should have used capital letters: Good With His Hands.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: goatfell
Date: 08 Nov 08 - 10:47 AM

Mr Parsons, please use everyday English instead of using big words were small words will do, in other words be more direct, and use words that I, a man with Leraning difficulties can understand, but as I say I'm sorry about calling you a cheeky git, because I'm one myself

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 05:10 AM

If you ever get to see Reg singing live, eanjay, then the story about the lives of his parents, will move you to tears.   

And last night, his much loved and beautiful dog, Woody, who is on the cover of 'Short Stories' (on the link above) passed away.

What comes out, when I listen to the music of Reg, and many other songwriters too, is the total opposite of Ross and Brand. There are many deeply sensitive people out here, and for far too long now, we've had to endure living in a de-sensitised world, ruled over by people who don't give a damn who they hurt or upset.

The BBC needs to change, as do many, many other radio stations, TV programmes and the media in general, because, you know what, there is NOTHING wrong in being sensitive.

So, with regard to Ross and Brand, it's not just about what happened that day, but it's the beginnings of the sensitive people coming back, saying we've had enough and that there is a different way to live, other than this crass, crude and cruel way that has been 'imposed' on us for so long, by those who think that unkindness is OK.

It's not.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 05:24 AM

nicely put Lizzie

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 05:42 AM

Bring back taste and decency!

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 07:21 AM

Easy, G - last think we need is the return of the Mary Whitehouse brigade.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 05:40 PM

But they never had any taste, and not much decency. Just paraded the words as if they owned them, made a lot of decent people who did have good taste embarrassed to use the words, and so made it easy for cultural despoilers to move in.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 07:02 PM

"made it easy for cultural despoilers to move in."

Indeedio.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 05:55 AM

well I'm not a great lover of good taste as such.

however theres a place for bad taste and it isn't centerstage of our main broadcasting stations. particularly the places frequented by very young people - who are very impressionable.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 06:57 AM

Surely that's why the watershed exists, WLD: it's up to the broadcasters to adhere to it responsibly and up to parents to ensure that very young people aren't watching/listening at inappropriate times, or left to their own devices on the internet where they might also gain accessd to age-inappropriate content.

I'd rather be treated like an adult and given a range of choice regarding what I watch and listen to; "bad taste" is so subjective that it's better for individuals to be able to make choices for themselves - such as switching off what they don't like. As I said up the thread, I hate Jeremy Clarkson and Chris Moyles, but I'd defend anyone's right to listen to/watch them.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 07:13 AM

Sorry mate, but the watershed is a false premise, in this little village of under 1000 people, there are 'kids' roaming the streets and vandalising toilets, Christmas decorations, and war memorials, long after the imaginary 'watershed'.
I assume that those same kids also watch TV at those late hours, when they are not busy misbehaving.
Good taste, good manners, and decent behaviour do not, SHOULD NOT, stop after 9 PM
Good god, you'll be telling me next you believe in fairies!

XG

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 07:37 AM

Again, G, this is an issue for the parents of the kids. it is their responsibility to monitor their kids' behaviour. And if the kids are out vandalising at night, I expect that whether they're listening to Jonathan Ross is the least of anyone's worries.

The problem with "good taste" and "decent behaviour" is that they mean different things to different people. There were people who found Jerry Springer The Opera offensive; I am glad it was aired, I felt it made some interesting points (about the culpability and responsibility of the media, funnily enough), and anyone who didn't want to watch it didn't have to. I know people who find Father Ted "too rude" and subversive of the Catholic church - does this mean I shouldn't be allowed to watch one of the best comedy series ever made?

Once we start legislating for each others' tastes and look for an agreed lowest common denominator of taste and decency, all we'll be left with is Songs of Praise and The Antiques Road Show.

If you don't like something, it's really very siimple: turn it off. And if you've got kids, take responsibility for what they watch and listen to.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 08:40 AM

Ross entered the annals of 'how low can you sink' when (I think on 'Have I Got News For You') he described something as being "As useful as next year's calendar to (the then terminally ill) Frank Sinatra".
All part of the dumbing down of the Beeb I suppose.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 09:05 AM

Perhaps we could coin a new phrase here.

As unfunny as Jonathan Woss.

Catchy isn't it, with that little edge of truth that makes these similes so useful.

XG

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: goatfell
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 09:53 AM

Ross, Brand and Clarkson and their ilk are as about as funny as a broken leg, I have more fun in hospital with a dislocted kneecap, then watching these 'human beings', but if people find them funny that is up to them

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Big Phil
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 10:09 AM

Woss, just a middle aged foul mouthed grossly overpaid letch. IMHO of course.

Phil*

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 10:26 AM

Could someone please define exactly what 'Daily Mail Brigade' and 'Middle England' actually mean?



Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 10:55 AM

I assume your question is disingenuous, Lizzie, as I'm sure you know very well the sort of values purveyed by the Daily Mail. But if you really want clarification (as I was the person who used the term) it's the people who get themselves into a high dudgeon after reading inflammatory and often grossly exaggerated articles in tabloids such as The Daily Mail. It seems to have been demonstrated that this whole issue would never have even caused much of a fuss if the Daily Mail had not whipped its readers into the sort of excessive moral frenzy for which it (and they) have become notorious. As someone said up the thread, "So, a serious and stupid lapse of judgement, which would have been forgotten if it hadn't been for The Daily Mail, who started the whole Shit storm."

Whoever used the term "middle England" can, I'm sure, define it themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 11:06 AM

No, it was in someone else's message, not yours. I see it a great deal and it always puzzles me.

So, could someone tell me, please...are ALL the 30,000 people who've complained, ALL Daily Mail readers then?

It's just that I know people who read The Daily Mail and actually, they're really decent people. I'd not call them hysterical, or right wing, or racist.

I also know people who read the Daily Mirror, the Sun, The Indepenent and The Times and Guardian too, and most of them are also good people.

Isn't the Daily Mail highest selling paper in the UK?

I'm just a little puzzled as to why, for so long, this term has been used in such a derogatory way, about people who actually DO give a damn about things.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 11:08 AM

It's what's called hyperbole Lizzie.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 11:24 AM

The thing is though John, a lot of what the Daily Mail has forecast, has actually come true. I recall reading a very good article of theirs about The Human Rights Act, and how, in bringing it in, every Tom, Dick and Whatsisname would be jumping on the bandwagon, claiming this and that, taking everyone to court for the merest whiff of "It's against my Human Rights, mate!

And....er....hasn't that come to pass?

They stand up for morals, true...but what's wrong with that? I think it's a great shame that MORE papers don't. I think it's all part of the reason why 13 years old are taking the Morning After Pill and why UNICEF have declared the children of the United Kingdon the unhappiest in the WORLD. Yeesh! Something to be proud of, huh?

The Daily Mail Reader. I have had it flung at me many a time, but I've never understood why, other than, for some, it seems to be the biggest insult they can ladle out.

Someone would think there was a personal vendetta going on somewhere...or something?

Can't wait to hear what a Middle Englander is. I think I may have been called that as well.

So, if The Guardian had been the one to blow the whistle on Ross and Brand, to stand up and say "Enough!", would that have been considered OK?

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 11:25 AM

but as a change from the humour of Woss, Clarkson and the like.....

"I've always been a Daily Mail reader. I prefer it to a newspaper."

'Often referred to as "Fascism with Oven Gloves on" The Daily Wail, also known as The Daily Heil and The Daily Fail is a hugely popular British comic for those who believe themselves (usually mistakenly) to be members of the middle classes.

A pair of rose-tinted spectacles must be worn to read articles in the Daily Mail, which describe how everything was great in the 1950s before the Islamic Conquest and the introduction of drugs, fat women, asylum seekers, paedophiles, the homeless and the invention of sex made daily life intolerable for the conservative middle-class Chelsea tractor driving mums and retired army colonels that inhabit these sceptred isles.

The Mail was first issued on 26 July 1932 (dated 30 July). The headline on the first edition was 'The British Union of Fascists: Our Patriotic Angels!'.

The present editor is Paul Dacre, known for his sweet and engaging personality, anti-swearing policy and rare porcelain collection. Dacre died in 1984, but was brought back to life by Jushin Thunder Liger in 1991, only to be run over by a truck in 1992, and again for luck in 2001.

More recent additions to the Mail line-up include the side-splitting shenanigans of London taxi driver Richard Littlejohn, with his world-famous witticisms, including
"British women married to Iraqis should be left to rot in their adopted country, with their hideous husbands and their unattractive terrorist children"
and
"Does anyone really give a monkey's about what happens in Rwanda? If the Mbongo tribe wants to wipe out the Mbingo tribe and eat their brains then as far as I am concerned that is entirely a matter for them".

It is worth noting that any Daily Mail headline phrased as a question can be answered with the word 'No'.
Hence 'Did Dragons Once Roam This Sceptred Isle?',
'Are we ruled by a Gay Mafia?' and
'Is The Daily Mail In Any Way Reasonable?'.

A first issue of The Daily Mail sold for £1 on 16 March 2004, which was, at the time, the lowest price ever paid for chip wrapping-paper at auction.'

Thanks to the uncylopedia

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 11:28 AM

"I'm just a little puzzled as to why, for so long, this term has been used in such a derogatory way, about people who actually DO give a damn about things."

Maybe because a lot of the articles printed by the Daily Mail seem to stir up a particular type of political response. And the people who take up that gauntlet can be very reactionary and right-wing in their responses, which is not really surprising considering the paper's place on the political spectrum. To you, they may "give a damn". But the sorts of campaigns whipped up by the Daily Mail are often ill-considered, knee-jerk reactions and based on little more than paranoia. IMHO, of course.

I realise that not everyone who reads the Daily Mail is a fascist - my ex-in-laws were Daily Mail readers, and while they were and are lovely people, I do know that the constant barrage of negative stories about immigrants, asylum-seekers, racial tension etc have had a distorting effect on their political outlook.

All 30,000 people who contacted the BBC may not have been Daily Mail readers, but it's the paper which originally broke the story and encouraged people to contact the BBC.

FWIW, I think The Sun is the highest-selling UK newspaper.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 11:33 AM

Most Guardian readers wouldn't really be that bothered about Brand and Ross's little teapot tempest, IMHO...but they were out in force when it came to the anti-Iraq war protests. Along with the Mirror readers, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 12:05 PM

Ruth;
FWIW, I think The Sun is the highest-selling UK newspaper.

I might dispute your use of the term 'newspaper' to relate to The Sun

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 12:15 PM

When I hear the expression "Middle England" I try to replace it by "Birmingham", and see if it makes sense. Most times it doesn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 12:22 PM

When I hear the expression " Middle England" I try to replace it with
of J. R. R. Tolkien's Middle-earth and in particular 'The Shire' and see if it makes sense.
Most times it does! :)

With apologies to McGrath

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 12:32 PM

Middle England was invented by Tony Blair in an effort to appeal to middle class English voters. This was at the time when his support in Scotland was such a 'given' that he didn't feel he could lose up here, no matter what he did.
Stupid smug git!

XG

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 12:40 PM

Hmmmm...interesting...

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: greg stephens
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 12:51 PM

As far as I recall, the Guardian columnists and leader writers were pretty unanimous in their anti-Ross(and Brand) condemnation. They certainly backed away from any later attempts at general BBC bashing, or "cleaning up",but that is a separate issue.
Broadly speaking, the Mail was anti- Brand, anti-Ross and anti-BBC. The Guardian, broadly speaking, was anti-Ross, anti-Brand(for the specific broadcast), pro-Brand(in general), and pro-BBC in general, but highly angry with the BBC for this specific incompetent foolishness.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 01:04 PM

When I hear the expression Middle England I try to replace it with Middle Earth . . . bugger someone's just said that. OK, I replace it with Surrey. Always works.
I've said this before (probably) but it's worth repeating: it's wholly moronic to blame the presenters who were just doing what they were paid to do (even if it is far too much). It's the breakdown of the BBC editorial process that needs fixing, before the entire concept of public service broadcasting and inhouse production is smashed up, sold off and lost for ever (or at least consigned to a foxy future).

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 01:08 PM

"All 30,000 people who contacted the BBC may not have been Daily Mail readers, but it's the paper which originally broke the story and encouraged people to contact the BBC."

Well, jolly good for them.

"Most Guardian readers wouldn't really be that bothered about Brand and Ross's little teapot tempest, IMHO"

Perhaps they should?

"...but they were out in force when it came to the anti-Iraq war protests. Along with the Mirror readers, of course."

So, does that mean that there is evidence that there were *no* Daily Mail readers out there protesting then?



Maybe we should just rejoice in men who talk of f*cking women, on our mainstream radio, on a Saturday morning, when children are tuned in.

OR, maybe we need to realise that we are fighting our own war, here in this country, for it's very survival, because the more we give in to loutish, oiky, sleazy, overtly sexual behaviour, on our TV screens, on our radio stations, and in our papers, all areas of our media..the more our children will think that it's all perfectly normal...

And just think what the children of the children who are right now having sex in this country, at just 12/13 years old, are going to accept as normal.

You see, I have this feeling that those who have had it in for the Daily Mail for such a long time, are actually far more bigotted, hysterical, judgemental and 'ist' than those who read the paper.

But, I could be wrong.

And by the way, I seem to recall that I was called 'middle class' for having been brought up in Pinner. At the time, the author of that had no idea that I was brought up in a house that was never owned by my father, as he couldn't afford to buy a house.

Strangely, not a single soul on here has mentioned that Lesley Douglas, all hail Mary and bow down, also lives in Pinner, but..unlike the home of my childhood, I'd imagine Lesley lives in the posher part of Pinner.

So, I live in Pinner and get slagged off for it. And er, Lesley Douglas lives in Pinner but is friend to a few on this board.

Hmmmm..so Radio 2 is ruled, or rather was ruled, by Middle England then..and it's Middle England who've apparently not only Hired Brand and Ross, but Fired t'em too....

Confusin', huh?

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 01:17 PM

The exception rather than the rule, Lizzie...

from Wikipedia: "The paper has also been accused of misquoting information about immigration in order to support its anti-immigrant line, a move criticised by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), who warned that media campaigns against immigrants could lead to a risk of "significant public disorder". However, the paper chose to interpret this as meaning that the disorder would be caused by immigrants, and failed to mention the media's role when reporting ACPO's statement.[26]"

And with regard to their journalistic policy and approach:

"A leaked email from a Daily Mail features writer is doing the rounds. It demonstrates the newspaper's xenophobic agenda perfectly:

——-Original Message——- From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: 13 February 2008 15:57
Subject: Response Source - Diana Appleyard , Daily Mail (Request for personal case study)
PUBLICATION: Daily Mail (Request for personal case study)
JOURNALIST: Diana Appleyard (staff)
DEADLINE: 14-February-2008 16:00
QUERY: I am urgently looking for anonymous horror stories of people who have employed Eastern European staff, only for them to steal from them, disappear, or have lied about their resident status. We can pay you £100 for taking part, and I promise it will be anonymous, just a quick phone call. Could you email me asap? Many thanks, Diana

HOW TO REPLY:
Email: mailto:[e-mail]
Phone: not provided for use
Fax: [phone] (preferred"



The Daily mail has, in fact, printed 80 negative headline articles about Poles in the UK over a period of 2 years, as seen here:

http://www.zpwb.org.uk/3


here's an interesting piece: Daily Mail and the BBC


Oh, and guess which newspaper's articles are best represented on the BNP website...

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 01:24 PM

men who talk of f*cking women, on our mainstream radio, on a Saturday morning

The Russell Brand Show goes (or went) out after 9 p.m. in the evening.

I've been present at most anti-war protests and, try as I might, I don't recall seeing one person reading, carrying, or selling the Daily Mail. And I wasn't surprised.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 01:24 PM

"So, does that mean that there is evidence that there were *no* Daily Mail readers out there protesting then?"

Erm, given the paper's place on the political spectrum, I'd hazard a guess that they were few and far between. The only two papers which regularly printed stories which questioned the war in Iraq from the start were the Mirror and The Guardian.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 01:27 PM

But apparently at a recent pro-nazi rally there were placards that encouraged those present to "Vote BNP. Read the Daily Mail."


And yes, the programme which caused the recent furore was not Ross's Saturday morning programme, but Brand's post-watershed one.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 01:59 PM

The 9pm watershed is pretty meaningless in a world where kids know how to use TV recorders and the Internet. Leaving aside the absurd view that the only people who are liable to be damaged by TV programmes that encourage despicable and cruel behaviour to be seem as normal and admirable are those who are tucked up in their beds at 9pm.
............................

I don't like the Daily Mail, in fact I generally ,loathe it - but sometimes they pick on the right target. In February 1997, the Daily Mail newspaper published pictures of the suspected killers of young Stephen Lawrence on its front page, with the headline "Murderers: The Mail accuses these men of killing. If we are wrong, let them sue us."

I don't think that the fact that the Daily Mail had a go at Ross and Brand would be any reason to feel that they deserve to be supported.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 02:09 PM

"The Russell Brand Show goes (or went) out after 9 p.m. in the evening."

So that makes it OK then? This 'watershed' business is pathetic. We never used to be this way, so why have we all become so frightened of standing up and saying "Bloody hell! This is beyond all common decency!"   If, I, as an individual, took children or young people into my home, showed them private videos, on a par with some of the filth that is now shown on our TVs, then I'd no doubt be arrested and considered to be some kind of pervert. Yet, because it's on our TVs it's apparently considered to be OK?

Just occasionally, I steel myself to watch 'Eastenders', not only is it the most depressing thing I've ever seen, but some of the things that are in the storyline make your hair stand on end! Yeesh! And it's on BEFORE the dreaded watershed, being watched in adulation by thousands of children around this country who think it's 'real life'...and THAT is what we want our children to aspire to? That, and Ross and Brand?

And they were merely doing what they were hired to do? So they were hired to drag us down into a moral cesspit then? Why?

Look around at what is happening in your land. See how so many of our young people are behaving, what they're talking about, how they think, what they're doing, etc..and then ask yourself this....Are our young people being consistently 'groomed' to accept the unacceptable? And if so, why, and by whom? Many young people can see *nothing* wrong in any of this. They can see nothing wrong in many things, things that you or I would have backed away from at high speed in our youth, perhaps. And nope I'm not talking about being Miss Goodytwoshoes here, but when you have mothers who think that being 'responsible' is ensuring your 13 year old goes out with contraceptives in her bag, or makes her an appointment with the GP for the Morning After Pill (and yes, that happens, here in Sidmouth) well, it seems to me that we've lost it, bigtime. And Brand and Ross are part of the *whole* picture, as is the BBCs decision to employ them in the first place and encourage them to behave as they did, along with many other things the BBC has done. The BBC make some incredible, brilliant, inspirational and wonderful TV and Radio and they should be damned proud of that. They should be deeply ashamed of the rest though.

Over the years, I've turned off Jonathan Ross many a time, because my kids and their friends were around the place on a Saturday morning, when he let his mouth completely run away with him. Unacceptable.
Sorry, but I'm glad they're both gone, albeit temporarily with Ross, and I certainly hope he cleans up his act when and if he comes back. Hell, both these men have fast and witty minds, they don't need to sink to this level and drag everyone else down with them. WHY do we want to go down, and not up? Why do we want to hear conversations, watch things, which a few years back would NEVER have made it to our screens or radios, and most of us would never have imagined they would, or wanted them to. WHERE does it stop?

"I've been present at most anti-war protests and, try as I might, I don't recall seeing one person reading, carrying, or selling the Daily Mail. And I wasn't surprised. "

Oh, that's the evidence.   Well, I hate to tell you this, but my mother and father both read the Daily Mail when I was growing up. Neither of them were racist, facist, bigotted or non-accepting. It wasn't 'filled' with hate stories, as I recall. My mother thought the Greenham Common Women were wonderful, and I remember her standing outside her church one day (she went through a 'religious' phase') trying to collect money for CND, whilst everyone ignored her. If she could have, she'd have gone to Greenham, but she wasn't able to do that, at that time in her life. But no, she never carried The Daily Mail around with her, nor talked about it, nor asked anyone else what paper they read. It just didn't enter into conversation.

And as far as Diane Appleyard goes, I agree, that sounds weird and extreme. SO weird and extreme that I've just written to her, via her website, included that email in it, and asked her what it's about and if it's real or not. I'll let you know if she comes back to me, and if she does, what she says.

The Brand and Ross matter HAD to be taken up by the press, because the BBC have refused to listen to their public for a very, very long time. Now, they are listening. I'd have been behind any paper who had taken this up and brought it to public attention, even one I was perhaps not too keen on.

This matters.

And yes, McGrath, the Mail did seek to get justice for Stephen Lawrence, over and over.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 02:16 PM

Am I the only one who has problems with the idea of a 'watershed'. In geological terms I can understand it is the line at which water is shed in one of two directions. But in terms of TV & radio content it is a time after which the baser instincts of presenters (except their instinct for self-preservation) take over.
At what stage does 'post-watershed' become 'pre-watershed'?
I understand that the comments discussed went out at 2am. What if it had been 4am, or 6am. There doesn't seem to be a morning watershed when we go back from being post-watershed to being pre-watershed.

HELP!!

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 02:18 PM

And one last comment from me.

Much as Jonathan Ross annoys me, I wish people would stop making fun of his speech impediment by referring to him as 'Woss'.

It's unkind and unnecessary.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 02:26 PM

What was wrong with what Jonathan Ross said on Russell Brand's show was that it made public events which should not have been disclosed, or certainly not broadcast to the nation. It was wrong that this young woman's name was thus bandied about. What was said wasn't untrue; it was the saying that was unacceptable and ought to have been edited out.

As for young women using contraceptives or, if all goes awry, taking the morning after pill, good. It is, after all, a million times better than outcomes that would occur without them. Surely no-one actually wants to encourage even more unwanted, unaffordable children or even more abortions, legal or otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 02:27 PM

"The 9pm watershed is pretty meaningless in a world where kids know how to use TV recorders and the Internet."

So do we now require broadcasting in which every programme assumes that a 5 year old may be watching, and censors its content accordingly?

"I don't think that the fact that the Daily Mail had a go at Ross and Brand would be any reason to feel that they deserve to be supported."

I agree, McGrath. I have greatly enjoyed their work in the past and will probably do so in future, but they did a dumb thing. As I said in my initial post on this thread, even if it had not been broadcast, what they did was crass and insensitive - they crossed a line. But one could also argue that the frenzy which was whipped up post-event was OTT and disproportionate. As I said, I was not in the UK at the time, and I had people texting me in disbelief about the fact that this story was on the cover of broadsheets day after day and the Prime Minister had made a statement. Imean, it's not like it was exactly a slow news week in the real world...

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 02:40 PM

"Well, I hate to tell you this, but my mother and father both read the Daily Mail when I was growing up. Neither of them were racist, facist, bigotted or non-accepting. It wasn't 'filled' with hate stories, as I recall."

Well, if it wasn't then, it certainly is now. But you've told us on several occasions that your dad fought in the war, Lizzie. Maybe he wasn't aware of the Daily Mail's fascist past...?

"In early 1934, Rothermere and the Mail were sympathetic to Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists[6]. Rothermere wrote an article, "Hurrah for the Blackshirts", in January 1934, in which he praised Mosley for his "sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine"[7], though after the violence of the 1934 Olympia meeting involving the BUF, the Mail withdrew its support for Mosley.

Rothermere was a friend and supporter of both Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, which influenced the Mail's political stance towards them up to 1939. During this period, it was the only British newspaper consistently to support the German Nazi Party.[8][9] Rothermere visited and corresponded with Hitler on many occasions. On 1 October 1938, Rothermere sent Hitler a telegram in support of Germany's invasion of the Sudetenland, and expressing the hope that 'Adolf the Great' would become a popular figure in Britain.

In 1937, the Mail's chief war correspondent, George Ward Price, to whom Mussolini once personally wrote in support of him and the newspaper, published a book, I Know These Dictators, in defence of Hitler and Mussolini. Evelyn Waugh was sent as a reporter for the Mail to cover the anticipated Italian invasion of Ethiopia.

Rothermere and the Mail supported Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasement, particularly during the events leading up to the Munich Agreement. However, after the Nazi invasion of Prague in 1939, the Mail changed position and urged Chamberlain to prepare for war, not least, perhaps, because on account of its stance it had been threatened with closure by the British Government.[citation needed]

In 2001 at the 27th G8 Summit held in Genoa, Italy; 93 peaceful anti-globalisation protesters were brutally beaten by the Italian police, falsely imprisoned and made to chant fascist slogans. Posing as a British Embassy official, a woman from the Daily Mail took pictures of some of the prisoners including journalist Mark Covell. The next day the Daily Mail ran a front page story including an entirely false report describing Covell as having helped mastermind the riots. It took 4 years for the newspaper to apologise and pay Covell damages for invasion of privacy.[2]

The paper continues to be referred to on occasion by critics as the Daily Heil, referring to its right-wing stance and its past support for Mosley.[10]"


Re the Diane Appleyard e-mail - it's real. Roy Greenslade even commented in the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2008/feb/19/howthedailymailhuntsfori

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 03:13 PM

Judging by the mental age of the presenters concerned, it was they who should have been tucked up in their beddy byes.

XG

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: GUEST,Doc John
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 04:15 PM

The Daily Mail attitude is probably similar to that of Major Frank Burns in 'Mash'. Except it's not mean to be funny but is probably equally hypocritical.
Ruth, not Antiques Road Show - pride, envy, avarice: far too sinful. Nor Songs of Praise - listen to the words: racism,jingoism, arrogance: more modern sins I suppose.
DJ

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 04:25 PM

"As for young women using contraceptives or, if all goes awry, taking the morning after pill, good."

Nope, I stated 13 year old girls, not young women.

Well, it seems The Daily Mirror was on similar lines:
I can't link to it, as it won't let me, but just google 'Daily Mirror facist links' then go to 'cached' to read it.


"It is one of the choicest pieces of journalistic dinner party general knowledge that the filthy right-wing Daily Mail was officially a fascist newspaper in the 1930s. The paper was burned on the streets after running the headline "Hurrah for the Blackshirts" and backing Oswald Mosley's plan to make himself Britain's equivalent of Adolf Hitler. No surprise then, so the conversational gambit goes, that the Mail is still beating up on asylum seekers today.

What is less well known is that the Mail's former stablemate the Daily Mirror was just as pro-fascist. On Monday, 22 January, 1934 the Mirror ran the headline "Give the Blackshirts a helping hand". The paper went one further than the Mail, urging readers to join Mosley's British Union of Fascists, and giving the address to which to send membership applications.

"As a purely British organisation, the Blackshirts will respect those principles of tolerance which are traditional in British politics," the Mirror told readers, complaining that "timid alarmists" had "been whimpering that the rapid growth in numbers of the British Blackshirts is preparing the way for a system of rulership by means of steel whips and concentration camps".

This was nonsense, the Mirror said, the result of ignorance of the reality of "Blackshirt government" in Hitler's Germany: "The notion that a permanent reign of terror exists there has been evolved entirely from their own morbid imaginations, fed by sensational propaganda from opponents of the party now in power."

The paper added that anyone who had visited Germany or Mussolini's Italy "would find that the mood of the vast majority of their inhabitants was not cowed submission but confident enthusiasm."

The Mirror's Sunday sister paper, then known as The Pictorial, followed up with a Hello!-style picture essay showing uniformed blackshirt paramilitaries playing table tennis and enjoying a sing- song around the piano while off duty inside the Black House, Mosley's barracks-cum-dungeon on London's King's Road.

The Mirror and the Pictorial also planned a photographic beauty contest aimed at finding Britain's prettiest woman fascist - though Mosley personally objected to this, saying the paper was trivialising his movement.

The author of the Mirror's "helping hand" article was Harold Harmsworth, the first Lord Rothermere, great grandfather of the current Daily Mail proprietor. Rothermere had inherited both papers from his older brother Lord Northcliffe, but had slowly sold off shares in the Mirror, enabling him to invest in the more profitable Mail. Surprisingly, perhaps, when the Mirror piece was published, he no longer owned the paper. But he still held considerable sway over the paper's board of directors, which he had appointed, including editorial director Harry Guy "Bart" Bartholomew - the man credited with creating the modern tabloid Mirror - and Rothermere's nephew Cecil King, who was to run the paper in its glory years of the 1950s and 1960s.

The change of ownership did not at first change the paper's pro- fascist editorial stance. And when the change came it had more to do with money than ideology. Rothermere's right-wing propaganda had badly hit the paper's sales. Bartholomew and King's solution was to re-launch the paper as a New York-style tabloid aimed at a working- class audience.

"Our best hope," King later wrote in his memoirs, "was to appeal to young, working-class men and women... If this was the aim, the politics had to be made to match. In the depression of the thirties, there was no future in preaching right-wing politics to young people who were in the lowest income bracket."

When the political shift in the Mirror came it was cautious. The paper backed the Conservative leader Stanley Baldwin in the 1935 election, and then gradually adopted an anti-appeasement policy. But politics was far less important in the re-launched, tabloid Mirror. The paper cut its politics coverage by half and vastly increased its sport reporting, shock-horror pictures, lurid crime tales, cartoons, human-interest material and pin- up pictures.

King and Bartholomew's American-style tabloid formula - put into action with enormous panache by legendary Welsh tabloid feature- writer Hugh Cudlipp - doubled the circulation to 1.5 million by 1939.

During the war - in true tabloid style - the Mirror became super- patriotic, and won for itself the reputation of being "the soldiers' paper". Much of the paper's radical reputation rested on its demagogic attacks on the "Colonel Blimp" Conservative politicians and upper-class army officers who made such a mess of the war effort in its early stages.

But the idea of the 1930s Mirror as a great champion of the anti- Nazi cause is largely mythical. And there is no indication that Cecil King ever changed his politics. King remained an admirer of Oswald Mosley, announcing in his memoirs that Mosley had been "the outstanding politician of his generation" and that his only mistake was to have "chosen the wrong side during the war."







Yes, my father fought in the war. And?

But these past few posts show exactly what I'm talking about, when the phrase 'Daily Mail Reader' is thrown around at people who dare to have a moral point of view about something, which disagrees with those of the people who throw the accusations.

I've read some fine pieces of journalism in The Daily Mail, and I've read some pretty bad ones too, BUT, this is true of many other papers as well. The most inspirational paper, for me at least, is The Independent.

I don't belong to one Paper, or one Party. I am Left, I am Right, depending on the subject matter in hand. I am no Class. And I think the BBC were very wrong in many things, concerning this whole business. Inspire Up, stop the Dumbing Down.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 04:39 PM

It's a crap paper. So what? Even a stopped clock gets the time right twice a day.

But as for holding a paper's past record against it, consider what The Guardian (at that time The Manchester Guardian) wrote back at the time of Lincoln's assassination: "of his rule, we can never speak except as a series of acts abhorrent to every true notion of constitutional right and human liberty".

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 06:49 PM

"But these past few posts show exactly what I'm talking about, when the phrase 'Daily Mail Reader' is thrown around at people who dare to have a moral point of view about something, which disagrees with those of the people who throw the accusations."

McGrath, the key point is that, whatever their roots, the Mirror and the Guardian have substantially altered their editorial policies. The Daily Mail has the distinction of being thr newspaper of choice for neo-nazis and the BNP - make of that what you will, Lizzie. The Daily Mail does not represent people who have a "moral point of view". As my earlier links demonstrate, it is anti-immigration, anti- asylum-seeker, and fosters an atmosphere of paranoia and fear (usually of anyone who isn't white British). If you are a "keep England for the English" type, who abhors the effect that immigration and multiculturalism have had on Britain, then the Daily Mail is probably right up your street.

Please don't imply that, because I loathe a particular right-wing rag, I do not have a "moral point of view". My moral compass is very sound, thank you very much. The fact that I don't share the same set of values as you doesn't make my values less moral, or less valid.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 07:03 PM

Oh, and before you bother, I know what they published about Stephen Lawrence. As McGrath says, even a broken clock is right twice a day. They've more than made up for that one act of lucidity since.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 07:24 PM

But it still remains true that the fact that the Daily Mail was all aerated about this Ross and Brand business is not in itself any reason to feel any less angry about the episode.

In fact people who are a long way from being Daily Mail readers are entitled to have an additional reason for feeling angry, because of the damage this has done to the BBC, and the aid and comfort it has given to people who are hostile to the BBC. That is on top of the damage that this type of programme arguably does directly to the wider community.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 04:52 AM

McGrath, I said earlier (twice) that I agree with you on that point. What they did was wrong. The response may have been disproportionate and tabloid-bred, but it was still a stupid, childish incident. I feel compelled to challenge the notion of the Daily Mail as a good, wholesome paper which upholds morals and values to which we should all aspire (and am frankly gobsmacked by anyone who really believes this), but this is a side issue.

I wholeheartedly agree with your points about the BBC, too. There are already enough people calling for the Beeb's head on a platter, and they don't need this sort of ammunition (I'm sure it's no coincidence that the Daily Mail, which has long been hostile to the BBC, spearheaded the call-to-arms). Again, there are two issues here: the calls themselves, which would have been distressing and embarrassing, and the decision to broadcast them. For the former, Brand and Ross bear responsibility. For the latter, the BBC unfortunately bears full responsibility, and the appropriate heads have rolled.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 04:59 AM

"Please don't imply that, because I loathe a particular right-wing rag, I do not have a "moral point of view".


Er..I think I merely said that perhaps other papers should have also taken up the gauntlet, along with their readers, although I'm sure that many of the people who complained come from a broad spectrum of newspaper readers.

"My moral compass is very sound, thank you very much. The fact that I don't share the same set of values as you doesn't make my values less moral, or less valid."

Absolutely. We are all entitled to our own idea of morals. You said earlier on that you thought the show was extremely funny, although it shouldn't have mentioned any names. I think that even without names being mentioned, it was crude, lewd, dumbed down trash, with no intelligence, sensitivity, thought, meaning or purpose, other than to upset two people who didn't deserve it, and to highlight the complete idiocy and vacuousness of two men, old enough to know better.

You may feel that to hear of women being f*cked over a settee is an absolute hoot. Again, that is entirely your choice, to which you are entitled. I think it's intensely degrading, both to women, and to men, who apparently think that *that* is what women are for. I want far more for women. As you know, I've a good sense of humour, at times a slightly naughty one too, but there is a limit. What happened had nothing to do with the editorial policy being wrong, because it should never have happened in the first place. It was, first and foremost, two juvenile presenters, neither of whom know or care much about music, who both have egos the size of King Kong, and who don't give a damn what comes out of their mouth, as they have absolutely no restraint or thought for others. The BBC hired them, knowing ALL of this, then decided to pay them an absolute fortune. And *that* is what was so wrong, and has been for a long time. Lesley Douglas was right to step down, she hired them.

It's time that self respect and responsibility came back, and that women were seen, and saw themselves, as more than some tawdry sexual object to be discussed in the most basic and base terms imaginable in the public domain. If you surround children and young people with perverted images, words and ideas, then don't be surprised when the society we now have, happens. If you want it to continue, to get ever worse, to get lower, and even more basic, then keep Brand and Ross, makes them heroes, build statues of them, pay them twice as much as they're already getting, put them on every single day of the week, and never complain about them.

Just stand in line, as The Emperor goes past, and tell him that in his New Clothes he 'looks wonderful tonight'.......and who knows, perhaps all will live happily ever after...and UNICEF will take the children of the UK off their number one position of being the most uhappy children in the world.

But somehow, I doubt it.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 05:28 AM

"You said earlier on that you thought the show was extremely funny, although it shouldn't have mentioned any names."

I think you'll find it was Diane who said that the problem was with them naming names. What I actually said in my first post on the subject is that I wouldn't want anyone ringing my granny to tell her I'd shagged them, whether it was true or not, because she was a lovely old lady and she would find it very distressing. So no, I never defended the content of this particular show. Where we disagree is that I feel that Brand and Ross, both of whom sail very close to the wind at times, went too far on this occasion but that I generally find them both highly entertaining and think that the response to this particular incident has been disproportionate.

You cited the 30,000 people who have complained to the BBC. Funnily enough, I've just been invited to join a Facebook group in support of Ross and Brand. It has 54,000 members at present. Presumably that number will continue to rise. They've got petitions to the BBC, to the PCC (starting a witch-hunt against the Daily Mail), etc. There was always going to be a backlash, because people in the UK do value freedom of expression.

As someone who has consistently defended free speech, Lizzie, I'm actually surprised that what you appear to want here is censorship. Personally, I don't think that listening to Jonathan Ross is the reason why teenage girls get pregnant. All of these issues are about maintaining a sense of perspective.

The most offensive thing about Jonathan Ross, IMHO, is how much he gets paid. Yes, it's appalling by any standards.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: greg stephens
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 05:40 AM

Ruth Archer: as this affair has progressed over the last week or two, your view seems to have settled down to what can only be described as "(1) What Ross and Brand did was wrong.(2) People who protested about it are wrong".
I don't see how you can quite reconcile these two things, which would seem to be in opposition to each other.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 05:44 AM

There is a tendency amongst the British public to support those they perceive to be the under dog, at any given time.
At this moment it's Ross and Brand who attract the support from this section of the public.
What I find amusing is the tendency for this sympathy to be applied in many cases, on behalf of someone who may thank you for it, but in reality, wouldn't give you the time of day if you met them in the street.
So much bonhomie is just a professional front, and out of the public eye, many of these overpaid nonentities are as sociable as polecats.
I think this is why I, and others, are attracted to folk music and the performers thereof. With only one or two notable exceptions, I have not, in 40 years of meeting with, and listening to many folk performers of varying degrees of success, and/or fame. I have not met any that were snotty, stuck up, or arrogant, in the way so many ephemeral 'stars' of other genres can be.

XG

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 05:45 AM

Oh and by the way, Terry is asleep again

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 05:46 AM

"I think Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand are hilarious, but I wouldn't want anyone ringing my granny and telling her I'd shagged them, regardless of whether it was true, or whether it was going to be nationally broadcast. That's because she was a very nice old lady who would have been very upset by such a phone call. As most grannies are and would be."


I apologise. Your words are above. It was said by someone else.

"As someone who has consistently defended free speech, Lizzie, I'm actually surprised that what you appear to want here is censorship."

I'm all for free speech.   I am not into dumbing down. And yes, there is a limit in everything. We have removed ALL of those limits. It was the wrong thing to do.


"Personally, I don't think that listening to Jonathan Ross is the reason why teenage girls get pregnant. All of these issues are about maintaining a sense of perspective. "

I said it's part of the WHOLE picture. The more base and crude society becomes, the more it ricochets off into that society, particularly off into children's minds.

They are the next generation, they deserve the best we can give them, not the worst.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 06:05 AM

Grag:

1) What Ross and Brand did was wrong.

I don't condone what was said on the programme, that's true.


(2) People who protested about it are wrong.

I watched a programme on Channel 5 last week about how the whole affair escalated. Until the Daily Mail got involved and whipped up the controversey, there was very little public outcry. This is a typical tabloid witch-hunt, and while I think the programme was inappropriate and the decision to broadcast was stupid, the response to it has been DISPROPORTIONATE. And I'd be willing to hazard a guess that many of the protesters (as is often the case with these media frenzies) haven't even heard the programme.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: greg stephens
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 06:10 AM

Ruth, is that a new principle you are formulating, that people should not criticise something they haven't witnessed? How does does this apply to, say, burglary, mugging, the Holocaust?

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 06:19 AM

But Lizzie, the problem is that your perception of "base and crude" material may be relatively mild to someone else. And it's when we start legislating for the taste and boundaries of others that we find ourselves in trouble.

To be honest, there's a lot that you and I would agree on. Stuff I've complained about in the past includes the marketing of Playboy merchandise to children, the positioning of soft porn men's mags at the tills in WH Smith where they are at a child's-eye level, teenage magazines which discuss sex, and the marketing of age-inappropriate clothes and makeup to pre-teen girls. Like you, I believe all of this stuff contributes to the problems we have in society.

I think that where we differ is that while I object to things being directly marketed to children, or put in the way of them going about their daily business, I think that the content of programmes that are directly marketed to adults, so long as they are broadcast at appropriate times, should be largely uncensored. At some point, parents themselves have to take responsibility for what their kids watch, read and how they spend their free time. If the internet and the television have become babysitters, this is more to do with lazy parenting than it is with the content itself. You can watch TV with your kids; you can even filter out what they can and can't see on the internet. You can refuse to give them a computer or a TV in their bedroom. But if parents can't be bothered to do these things, whise fault is it when they get hold of inappropriate content?

At the end of the day, we as adults have a choice in what we watch and listen to - if there's something you don't like, you can turn it off. That way the people who do like it aren't forced to live by your standards. But the responsibilities of good parenting are really, I feel, another matter, and it would be a bit daft if all the TV and radio in the world was only suitable for an audience of under-12s.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 06:30 AM

"I have not met any that were snotty, stuck up, or arrogant, in the way so many ephemeral 'stars' of other genres can be."

I've met Jonathan Ross actually, G - he was a really nice bloke, and utterly charming. People are not supporting them simply because they love an underdog - they are supporting them because they were immensely popular.

"How does does this apply to, say, burglary, mugging, the Holocaust?"

Erm, if a jury sits on a case of mugging or burglary, are they not presented with evidence before they come to a decision? Or do they base their judgement on hearsay and speculation?

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: GUEST,Black Hawk on Works PC
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 06:39 AM

'what they did was crass and insensitive - they crossed a line'

What keeps getting put to one side in this debate is the fact that they broke the law!
By making an offensive phone call they broke the law.
But no-one seems to recognise that fact.
As usual with 'celebrities' law breaking is expected & tolerated.
That is the message the BBC is sending out.
If they can send 'prank' offensive messages then why shouldn't the rest of the country join in.
I understand that a large problem in schools is that of 'cyber bullying' i.e. offensive texts & messages.
Glad that woss & bland are doing their bit to uphold the tradition!

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 07:33 AM

Indeed I did say that what Ross & Brand said was very funny, but clearly not suitable for transmission. Had I been in on this edit, I'd have roared with laughter but wouldn't even have needed to refer it up to ask whether it was fit for broadcast. It was not, and the presenters doubtless expected, confidently but wrongly, that this part of the recording would be cut.

As has been outlined way above, the editorial process collapsed completely, a disaster waiting to happen as a result of outsourcing to those lacking appropriate training in editorial judgment. Appropriate heads on top of suits have rolled. It's now up to the BBC to tighten up procedures by every possible means.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: goatfell
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 01:29 PM

Well Mr Parons,

do you or do you not acept my appoligy, for being such a stupid git, or you just not talking to me, and for calling you a cheeky git, or you think that you are more clever than me

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 01:50 PM

"...programmes that are directly marketed to adults..."

But this programme wasn't "marketed". This wasn't a pay-as-you-watch or subscription channel. It was one we all finance through the licence fee. And that means that when it is misused it provides ammunition for those who would want to do away with the licence fee system, and I think that would be disastrous.

As for the assumption that people who have protested are going by hearsay, because they didn't listen to the original broadcast, significant bits have been repeatedly broadcast since, and carried on YouTube.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 02:01 PM

Anything broadcast after 9pm is, by its nature, marketed at adults because this is post-watershed. Say what you like about the watershed being a nonsense, but there has to be some sort of cut-off point where the kiddies should be in bed and the grown-ups can watch and listen to what they like, or where parents are at least monitoring what their kids are watching/listening to.

The alternative, as I've said, is to never, EVER broadcast anything that isn't suitable for a pre-teen audience. So far, no one has supported this as a viable alternative. So in these days of readily available media of all kinds, what's the answer? A blanket ban on adult content? Or parents taking responsibility for what their chidren are doing?

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 02:47 PM

The alternative, is to make all programmes, something you wouldn't mind listening to yourself, in the company of you family. Children and grandparents alike.
Let the non public funded channels broadcast the smut and innuendo.
Now why didn't we think of that?

XG

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 02:59 PM

Well thunk, John.
I agree.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 04:27 PM

...so the answer is a blanket ban on adult content. Right.

Alternatively, you could always just change the channel.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 04:50 PM

You don't get it do you Ruth!
This is a publicly funded channel, funded by EVERYBODY. Therefore, the content should be suitable for everybody.
It is not a minority interest broadcaster, it is a publicly funded broadcaster. I pay my licence, as do others, and I don't want these eedjits paid mega money using the contributions of people like me.
When it comes to changing channels, then let those in pursuit of infantile, potty mouthed entertainment, change to another channel, and not pollute that of people who dislike playground humour.

XG

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 04:59 PM

The difference between you and I, is that I belong to a generation where children could have stayed up late and watched TV, with no worry about what they saw. The worst may have been a creepy horror movie.

There was self-restraint, and self-control in many things. We need to return to that.

"To be honest, there's a lot that you and I would agree on. Stuff I've complained about in the past includes the marketing of Playboy merchandise to children, the positioning of soft porn men's mags at the tills in WH Smith where they are at a child's-eye level, teenage magazines which discuss sex, and the marketing of age-inappropriate clothes and makeup to pre-teen girls. Like you, I believe all of this stuff contributes to the problems we have in society."

Then what a crying shame that when I spoke about all of those things, on the BBC, when I urged the BBC, and Lesley Douglas herself, to be the ones to start the ball rolling, to bring about change, by playing the powerful songs of our singer songwriters in the folk and acoustic world, to open people's eyes and minds, that you chose not to stand beside me, but to join, and eventually lead, the 'witch hunt' against me., as the BBC themselves referred to it as.

The difference between you and I, is that I will NEVER accept the unacceptable, purely because someone tells me I must.

There are things in life that are fundamentally wrong.

The grooming of our children has been one of them. The willingness of the BBC to join in with that, along with the Dumbing Down process of an entire generation, in fact probably two, has been another.

The only way is UP, not DOWN.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 05:07 PM

What would a broadcasting channel that failed to offend anyone look like?
Wall-to-wall Watch With Mother?
There were those who saw sinister corruption in Andy Pandy and The Flowerpot Men.
The role of public service broadcasting is not to please everyone all the time, that would be bloody impossible, wholly pointless and plain daft.
It is to educate, inform and entertain but not all simultaneously.
Viwers and lsteners are expected to have the intelligence to switch on and off according to their personal tastes. Or do Something Else.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Megan L
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 05:09 PM

Why the hell should we pay for the BBC let them earn their keep like everyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 05:12 PM

When it's done on our money, we should have a say in the agenda followed.
Let them find independent funding if they want to play doctors and nurses, or any other prurient games.

XG

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 05:24 PM

"This is a publicly funded channel, funded by EVERYBODY. Therefore, the content should be suitable for everybody.
It is not a minority interest broadcaster, it is a publicly funded broadcaster. I pay my licence, as do others, and I don't want these eedjits paid mega money using the contributions of people like me."

All i can tell you, G, is that there are lots of licence-fee-payers who enjoy the edgier comedy programmes produced by the BBC. They love the fresh, exciting and dynamic stuff that's been produced both by BBC radio and TV. In an effort to be all things to all people, the BBC has chosen to produce a diversity of content, rather than trying to pander to a single common denominator which would be horribly bland and reductive. As I asked earlier, who legislates for what's acceptable to "everyone"? Who is the arbiter of the common good taste?


Lizzie, we differed over far more than we ever agreed upon; not least of which was your belief that people singing songs is of paramount importance in changing the world. I thought your crusade in this respect was both pointless and excessive. But let me be absolutely clear about something, and you can choose to believe me or not: I have always been absolutely up front in arguing with you, and did not go to the BBC moderators to ask for you or your posts to be banned. There was no crusade, at least not on my part.

Again, I would ask you the same question I asked G: who gets to decide what's acceptable? Who is the arbiter for national taste and decency?

You say you detest dumbing down. So do I. I feel we must be in a pretty parlous state as a culture if grownups cannot be trusted to cope with mature content in the media.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 05:24 PM

"What would a broadcasting channel that failed to offend anyone look like?..."

Inspirational?

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 05:29 PM

You're losing sight of the fact that the BBC does not make the sort of programmes of which you appear to disapprove. The one in question is made by an outsourced production company which had to bid for the opportunity to do what it does. In turn, the BBC has to justify the granting of its charter. Seems very accountable to me, even though I have always opposed outsourcing.

Doctors & Nurses? Well I saw some of Holby City tonight and I think we could all survive without that trash but I understand it is extremely popular.
So whatever do you want? Take off the innocuous wallpaper and replace it with . . . what? Wall-to-wall Show of bleedin Hands? Top Of The Flops?
Many millions of licence payers rather like stuff that's somewhat nearer the edge. Good for them. The BBC is there to provide it and obviously I'd oppose all reactionary, Whitehouse-like voices that want to rein it back.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 06:18 PM

The point is not to broadcast anything that isn't suitable for an adult audience. Which would probably exclude a lot of bland and pointless stuff as well as the "strong" and pointless stuff.

And I don't mean "adult" in the sense which it has taken on in the Internet.

Whether a programme is made by the BBC or bought by it is completely irrelevant. What matters is whether it is broadcast by the BBC.
........................

"nearer the edge" what does that actually mean?

There's was once man who wanted someone to drive him around, and he asked the candidates how close to the edge of a cliff road he could manage to drive safely. And one says "a foot away", and another says "six inches", and one says "an inch and a half". But the last one says "I've no idea - I'd always stay as far away from the edge as I could" - and of course he got the job since the man doing the hiring wasn't off his head.
...................................

"Marketing" means "selling". The BBC shouldn't see itself as being in the business of "selling" to the licence holders. We already own it.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 06:36 PM

""Marketing" means "selling". The BBC shouldn't see itself as being in the business of "selling" to the licence holders. We already own it."

Mmmmkay...so in the current broadcasting climate of hundreds of channels, the BBC shouldn't make the audience which is paying for the product aware of what it's producing? Publicity and identifying a target audience are part of marketing. How cross would you be if you were constantly missing BBC programmes of interest because they did not market their product to you?

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 06:57 PM

"Bought in" is not the same as "outsourced". A programme made by an independent production company is (theoretically) subject to the same editorial process as one made inhouse. This means that the producer, although not a BBC employee, is still bound by guidelines which state (roughly) "if in doubt about whether to transmit, refer up". However, as has been examined in detail many miles up the thread, this process broke down disastrously. Didn't I say this earlier? At least twice?

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 12 Nov 08 - 05:44 AM

So how high up the BBC do you have to go, before you find someone who knows right from wrong?

XG

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 12 Nov 08 - 05:56 AM

The network controller resigned on the grounds that editorial responsibility was ultimately hers. You cannot get higher than that. But as has already been said, the producer may well have had doubts since it is known that the programme content was indeed referred up within the BBC. This is, however, getting dangerously close to dropping his own boss in it, since the production company's owner is one of the presenters.

This is how a conflict of interests arises and illustrates the drawbacks of outsourcing. Producers' guidelines are bound to become blurred when a producer sees his job potentially on the line.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Nov 08 - 09:31 AM

It's absolutely right to say that we all have control over what we see and hear, and we all have the ability to change channels or switch off - and I do those two things very often.

But the real issue seems to have been clouded here. It's not about whether the BBC should, or should not, transmit 'edgy material' - that's something they need to challenge themselves and their consciences over.

The real issue is that two unbelievably highly paid people used their position to commit a dirty and abusive, and almost certainly criminal, act. It wasn't comedy, even 'edgy comedy' (whatever the fuck that is), it was simply two louts getting a hard-on by abusing a young woman and her grandfather.

Their behaviour fell into the same category as 'heavy-breathing phone calls' - if you I subjected a lady to phone calls asking what colour knickers she was wearing, or telling her I was playing with myself, we'd very quickly find our collars being felt by the Boys In Blue (and very rightly so). What those two did is exactly the same thing - they were dirty and abusive telephone calls, and they should get the same treatment as any other dirty-telephone-caller.

That's the issue, IMHO.

And they should be utterly ashamed of themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Nov 08 - 09:34 AM

'You or I'

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 12 Nov 08 - 10:17 AM

From what I've read the two presenters were relying on the editing process. However, I would have expected them to be responsible in what they were doing and saying and not just do it and then rely on somebody else to sort it all out. Usually, the more money people are paid the more responsible they are expected to be; surely that is part of what they are being paid for.

It was wrong what they did and it gave the wrong message to anybody else who may be thinking of making prank phone calls.

Russell Brand at least had the good grace to resign. Jonathan Ross has since been taking part in the charity Apprentice programme whilst he is suspended. This has been allowed because it will go out after the suspension period is over. I'm glad that he is doing work for charity but I don't agree that he should do it whilst suspended if it is for a BBC programme.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 12 Nov 08 - 10:20 AM

It should have been edited yes, but that wouldn't erase it from Andrew Sachs' answering service. So the criminal act was still committed, and apparently condoned.

XG

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Nov 08 - 01:44 PM

"Marketing" does of course involve providing information - but so do most human activities, and in most of these that word "marketing" doesn't belong.

If I give my address to someone I'm not "marketing" myself". If I pass out posters about a demonstration I would find it offensive to have that described as "marketing". Providing accurate information about programmes is a matter of public service - in fact with some programmes providing accurate information might be likely to put people off programmes they would not like, rather than to attract viewers.
................

I'm still puzzling over this term "edge". It seems to me it's one of those metaphors which have got out of hand.

If we talk about something which is very difficult or demanding as being at "the edge", and understand that as implying something admirable, that makes sense. The image is of pushing forward into new territory which deserves to be explored. So being "at the edge" is a good thing, and the expectation is that in time perhaps "the edge" will move forward

But not all edges are like that. If food is going off there will be a stage at which it is still edible, but only just. If the light is going there will be a stage at which it will still be possible to see, but only barely so. And there is pain that can be borne, but only just. Those are edges you do not want to approach more closely than you are obliged to, and there is no expectation that "the edge" should move forward over time.

And when it comes to humour it seems to me that this is much more a case of the second kind of edge than the first. Being "at the edge" means it is barely tolerable, while being over the edge is intolerable - as in this case. To describe something as being "on the edge" is not to praise it but to criticise it.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: goatfell
Date: 12 Nov 08 - 03:29 PM

I agree John

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 12 Nov 08 - 05:33 PM

Outpourings of Jonathan Ross - a 'celebrity'


Outpourings of Dr. Hunter 'Patch' Adams *on* a 'celebrity'

"Our system of "people fame" values self-centeredness and wealth. I want to live in a world where people become famous because of their work for peace and justice and care. I want the famous to be inspiring; their lives an example of what every human being has it in them to do — act from love!"

Which do we choose, for the future of our children?

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Kampervan
Date: 13 Nov 08 - 03:32 PM

Got to say that I agree with Ms Easby on this one.

I don't think that this particular bit of Ross/Brand should have gone out; but it was right that experimented in the way they did.

I'm not a great fan of Jonathan Ross, but I think that Russell Brand is, by and large, brilliant. Although sometimes I wince a little and think that he goes a bit too far. But that's part of the package.

We need a BBC that takes risks, that isn't beholden to sponsors or advertisers and that feels able to push the frontiers. Many of their best programmes have done that

But they must have the appropriate checks and controls that make sure that when someone goes a bit too far, then the broadcast is pulled.

The Beeb has lots of downsides, but many more upsides. Criticise it, try to improve it, but don't get rid of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Megan L
Date: 13 Nov 08 - 03:38 PM

What utter tosh we do not need the BBC other companies make perfectly good programmes without getting liscence money from us poor punters so why shouldnt they. If they must be used in times of national emergency comandeer them

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 13 Nov 08 - 03:46 PM

"We need a BBC that takes risks, that isn't beholden to sponsors or advertisers"

It is beholden to us the licence payers, what's the difference Kampervan?

Do you think commercialism would spoil the BBC?
Well guess what the companies they use to outsource their programmes to, and the free lancers who bring in their own producers, are all commercial.
Look what a mess that's caused.

XG

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: paula t
Date: 13 Nov 08 - 03:47 PM

I am not easily offended by swearing and sexual innuendo I am very happy to listen to the odd risque joke. However I feel that the behaviour of those men was unacceptable. They invaded this man's privacy. They telephoned him and then made public things which shouldn't have been.This girl then became the subject of some very unsavoury publicity herself ( as though it was all her fault). She may have been able to cope with this but it must have been dreadful for her family. All this just because 2 people believe their own publicity and feel they are untouchable.

I hope that women will think carefully about getting involved with Russel Brand in future. After all, someone is bound to re- employ him and then they run the risk of featuring as a main character in one of his "jokes" again.TV and radio are not the place for such hurtful playground boasting.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Kampervan
Date: 13 Nov 08 - 03:56 PM

To John Mackenzie

The difference is, that sponsors vet what is produced before it's made, and the result tends to be safe, risk-free productions.

Yes. the BBC is beholden to us, but we only get to comment after the event. So the risks can be taken and the consequences of upsetting us have to taken too.

IMHO it tends to be a more adventurous process.

K/van

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 13 Nov 08 - 04:18 PM

Well mate, as you may have guessed from my posts, I don't want my BBC adventurous.
Some of the plonkers they have on Radio 4 in the 6:30 PM 'Comedy slot' are an adventure too far for me already.

¦¬]

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Kampervan
Date: 13 Nov 08 - 06:27 PM

O.K. then John, I'l agree to differ. But do you really think that Sandy T on the Newsquiz is beyond the pale?

:->