BS: Jonathon Woss off air!

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 02:09 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 01:17 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: 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: 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: 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: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 12:40 PM

Hmmmm...interesting...

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 11:06 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 09 Nov 08 - 07:02 PM

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

Indeedio.

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 - 07:21 AM

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

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: Big Al Whittle
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 05:24 AM

nicely put Lizzie

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.