Private eye, (not always correct it should be said) has often claimed that Darce walks about the office using the C word. Sometimes he uses what is termed a double C word rant.

You have to admire some one like that for his his family values hypocrisy. not!

But then the same is true of the owner of The Daily Express, who built his fortune on soft porn and who now uses his papers to rant about family values ,and Conservative policies.

Or Murdoch, The list goes on and on.

Or Murdoch, The list goes on and on.

Wot, Murdoch? You can’t possibly have any criticisms of Old Rupe, can you???

Indeed, Dacre is apparently a right old C-word…

Ross? A polemicist? Really? So what disputational point is being made every Friday when a young actress squirms in her seat at his leering and we all know she’s only tolerating it because a film publicist told her to?
This has been coming for a long time – the cringe-making interview with Keely Hawes, the one-note questioning of Martina Navratilova which pretty much ignored her athletic achievements, even the diminishing of Lady Thatcher into a masturbatory fantasy. Ross uses a position of power to humiliate women – something I would have thought this website was largely against.
OK, so this time the victim is a kiss-and-tell burlesque dancer with a nose for an opportunity. What are we saying here? She was asking for it?
Don’t let the Daily Mail’s hostility to Ross trigger the automatic assumption he should be let off the hook. The Mail is right on this one and if we don’t admit it, we weaken our argument when it targets comedians and programmes who are worth defending.

I was asked by the London Evening Standard on Wednesday evening for my take on the affair. (I have form as I’m an ex-BBC guy who’s had a pot shot at the corporation in the past for employing upper class tits)

For some reason though, they didn’t print it in today’s paper. I can’t think why.

Here it is:

“FIVE full pages in the Sun today including exclusive interviews and saucy pics. Pages and pages in other rags, oodles of commentators on Telly and Radio…

Y’know, it’s almost as if they’re trying to keep other stories off the front or inside. Which funnily enough was an accusation the Conservatives were chucking out just a few days ago when one of their own was the centre of attention.

Something the Sun hasn’t gone on about yet was what was Mr Murdoch really doing with Osborne, the Oligarch and Mandelson that day? But that’s not really a good enough story is it – not when you have two vulgarians who have – shock, surprise – been vulgar.

I love the line in the Sun about Brand and Ross being disgusting, quickly followed by Georgina of “Satanic Sluts” admitted she’s shagged Brand not once, but three times and then expected him to be a gentleman about it…. Brand? Like he’s some kind of Mr Darcy? I ask you!

She’s a page 3 wannabe who’s suddenly found a way to get fame, while Editor Wade and co-horts have found another way to bitch-slap the BBC, keep Mr Murdoch out of public view and avoid any more stories about dodgy MPs. Frankly, announcing to the world that Brand bonked Georgina not once but thrice has elevated her to the level of, well Kerry Katona or Jodie Marsh. Would I be surprised if she was secretly grateful for the sudden celebrity honour. Added to which, I’m sure Mr Sachs will suddenly get a few more voice-overs out of it as most voice-over agents thought he was either a) dead or b) retired to America.

You’d hardly think there was a global recession shitting people up would you, with FIVE FECKING PAGES OF MADE UP GUFF TO FOCUS MIDDLECLASS FAUX OUTRAGE ON, would you?

And as for Mark “Gnasher” Thompson rolling out the obligatory apology, I haven’t seen crawling, cringing and hand-wringing spinelessness since the BBC’s response to the Hutton Whitewash.”

Carl Eve, Plymouth

Ex-bbc researcher, regional reporter and person WITH A SENSE OF FUCKIN PROPORTION!!!

And when I emailed today to ask if it was used, was told it was not, although “it’s very good but very much a media commentary on the Sun”. Yes, that’s quite correct.
Anyway, I was asked whether I’d like to instead comment “comparing Brand and Ross and considering who is more sympathetic” for Friday’s London Evening Standard…

So I thought I’d have another go. D’you think it’ll be used?

Here you go:

“Hmm, Georgina signs a six figure deal with the Sun (according to Andrew Gilligan in your paper today) and they kindly reshow pictures of her in a state of undress? Who should I call now to state my outrage at being manipulated by the tabloids? Not that I read the story or saw the picture, but I know I’d be pretty outraged if I did, so I’ll complain anyway.

I think my sympathies now lie with Brand for his appalling lack of judgement – in sleeping with one of the Satanic Sluts – and Ross for not having the same financial acumen as this new Page 3 starlet. And of course, for Mr Sachs, who must wonder where Georgina’s parents are in all this. Oh, and for having Brand shout “que” as he and Georgina got jiggy… according to the same tabloid I still haven’t read and been outraged by yet. Give me five days and I’ll get around to it.

Please – can’t the London press get back to ignoring the entire Osborne/Oligarch/Murdoch story and instead await the next Peston revelation on economic armageddon?

Yours
Carl Eve”

With you all the way there, Aaron. The whole thing is total bollocks and I don’t quite get why the beeb has such a penchant for taking it.

The hypocrisy of some of the key antes has left me quite breathless.

Nearly lost my lunch when I read Gordon Brown – the king of taste and cultural sophistication – saying something like the Brand-Ross stunt was completely unacceptable and irresponsible.
Wish he’d be that explicit about some of these wanker bankers we’re all keeping afloat. Seems that it’s ‘acceptable’ to piss bank account holders’ money against a wall and take a punt with their funds on risky mortgage deals – do that kind of thing and you’ll find that you get yourself bailed out on the rest of us – but when two jokers like Brand and Ross overstep (kind of) some vague boundary of taste in an episode that was almost too boring to contemplate – well, those boys are put up against the wall.

I don’t really care what Wossy and Brand get paid – I’d much rather my licence fee went to those two (Wossy does amuse me greatly sometimes – think Brand’s a bit of a twat but that’s probably an age thing) than to that service-and-staff-cutting prick Mark Thompson. Seeing as we’re referencing Private Eye this evening – it carries an article this week which says that ‘no fewer that 40 in house publicists’ are promoting some glossy beeb brochure about the programme for autumn and – as if that wasn’t enough by way of PR – that the beeb also retains the services of the external PR company Brown Lloyd James (same company as is used by the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail, which is a laugh – bet the champers has been flowing at BLJ this week). Christ only knows how much of our licence fee piddles down that drain.

Wossy and Brand have my full support, for what it’s worth – f-all, to be sure, but they can have it anyway. Sure, they were dumb, but who isn’t. Freedom means having the freedom to make a complete arse of yourself. I don’t mind paying good money to watch those two go large. I’d much rather they had my licence fee than Lloyds had my tax money.

FUCK THE WORLD

Etc.

PS

I’m liking this Carl Eve

stephen rouse,

I think you have some good points, but Jonathan Ross is a popular talk-show caricature, and one that, IMHO, is grossly overpaid.

But Ross’ on-show demeanour is not the point. The point, of this entire debacle, is that the rightwing press has attempted to make an entire narrative of this to soil the BBC.

If you want to make a seperate case against Ross, and I see a lot of merit in that, it should be dislocated from this issue.

” The whole thing is total bollocks and I don’t quite get why the beeb has such a penchant for taking it.”

Because the BBC is scared shitless that it will be destroyed. Privatised, broken up, what ever you want to call it.

Newsnight has been moving to the Right for some time. You can’t switch on these days without some idiot neo Conservative talking bollocks. They have even decided that Britain needs Mr Frum a Republican, to be a pollster on British issues.

Then you have their pretend monetary policy committee, that come on every month. It is made up of either Ken Clarke, Nigel Lawson, or Norman Lamont. (all former Tory Chancellors. Never a Labour person) Ruth Lea, (former spokesperson for Institute of Directors….. even more right wing than the CBI) And usually some neo con American that works for the Hudson institute who has been wrong about everything.

I don’t think that this has got much to do with ‘edgy’ humour, a degree of sensitivity to other people, in that they may find something upsetting, does not reduce them to narrow minded bigots. The fact that these two guys, who are strong media figures, have the cultural presence to offer their acts as legitimate behaviour, may suggest that it is ok to make unsolicited calls of a similar nature. The implication is that we can operate in a reality that is not socially negotiated, and that apology sanitises the act, rather than the act being restrained by the possibility of apology.

I can’t stand either of the two tossers at the heart of this, and I’d quite happily see them both out on their ears, but as a result of doing THE VERY THING THEY WERE HIRED TO DO? Does anybody here think that either of them were hired to stay on the right side of taste and decency? Of course they bloody weren’t.

And the hypocrisy of the Fail in criticising them for this, when they pull the same shit IN EVERY ISSUE makes my blood boil.

@ sally –

my point entirely. trying to avoid the necon advance by cosying up to it ain’t really a starter. beeb needs to learn to FIGHT.

love to see brand & wossy put a call in to darling

Have a look at news.google.co.uk Top Stories UK. At the time of writing:

Lesley Douglas: The woman who hired Russell Brand resigns
Telegraph.co.uk – 25 minutes ago
Lesley Douglas resigned as controller of Radio 2 because she could not escape personal culpability for the scandal which has engulfed the BBC.
Ross suspended by BBC for 12 weeks guardian.co.uk
The ups and downs of Ross’ career BBC News
Digital Spy – Times Online – TeleText – Variety
all 5,638 news articles

Rebel general offers aid corridor for Congo
CNN International – 34 minutes ago
(CNN) — The rebel general who ordered a cease-fire for his forces said Thursday he has offered to create a “humanitarian corridor” so aid can safely reach thousands displaced by four days of fighting in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo.
Congo conflict shows flaws in UN peacekeeper force The Associated Press
Congolese rebels open ‘humanitarian corridors’ AFP
guardian.co.uk – BBC News – Telegraph.co.uk – ABC Online
all 2,542 news articles

ukliberty

Indeed, we should be commenting on the Congo issue – any takers?

Dave Osler has commented on it.

Dave Osler has commented on it.

I know, it’s scheduled to appear here early in the morning… :o)

Yes, the media frenzy is excesive, but your excuses for the BBC are invalid. Going by some of the abusive comments on here this question may be wasted on you lot. If you made abusive, sexual phone calls to a 78yr old, from your employer’s phone and in your employer’s time, would you expect to keep your job? If it was sanctioned by your boss and broadcast to a vast audience would you expect your boss to keep his job?

I suspect your exasperration is owed to the changing public attitude towards the BBC. No longer good old auntie to be exploited by the white middle-class left. Lets look forward to the day the tv tax is scrapped, and the BBC is broken up into competitive private media businesses. No longer will the poor be legally required to subsidise the pretentious tastes and the lifestyles of the white middle-class mediarites.

If you made abusive, sexual phone calls to a 78yr old, from your employer’s phone and in your employer’s time, would you expect to keep your job? If it was sanctioned by your boss and broadcast to a vast audience would you expect your boss to keep his job?

But then, I’m *not* a polemic comedian.

As I said, both acted terribly. Making those telephone calls was a very bad call.

I suspect your exasperration is owed to the changing public attitude towards the BBC.

No, it’s purely a tabloid – hypocrisy, dumbing down – thing.

..and the BBC is broken up into competitive private media businesses.

What, like the other ones who are failing miserably as ad-spending diminishes, without a thought for quality programming? As a regular Radio Four listener, I wonder what on earth you’re on about?

No longer will the poor be legally required to subsidise the pretentious tastes and the lifestyles of the white middle-class mediarites.

Maybe the rich should subsidise the poor?

Actually, and this is IMHO and not the position of LC or its writers, I think the BBC should be drastically streamlined and should concentrate on original drama, comedy, and news gathering.

If it were me, Jonathan Ross wouldn’t be earning a fraction of his pay. I’d much rather employ – and pay with my taxes – a thousand foreign correspondents.

But, as I said, that’s my opinion.

I see a role for the BBC, and it’s entirely constructive and informative, and would not – in the main – compete with commercial TV.

But that is not the point of this thread…

If they had suddenly decided to phone someone up out of the blue to inform him that Brand had slept with his granddaughter then the outrage would be wholly understandable. But they didn’t. Sachs was scheduled to appear on the show, cancelled at the last minute and they phoned him up as a result. Sachs then later actually authorised that the show could go ahead, as long as they “toned it down” a bit. If he had appeared, doubtless it might well have been alluded to in any case. What has then followed has been a witch-hunt which can only be described as cartoonish in its insanity.

As for this stuff about insulting an elderly gentleman, since when did someone’s age affect anything? Perhaps Sachs did have a rather fluffy view of his granddaughter which has very suddenly become incredibly jaded, but it’s difficult to imagine he wasn’t aware of her involvement in soft, and also from the looks of what is now going around, hardcore porn. In any event, she has since took full advantage, pocketed an apparent six figure sum via Max Clifford, and is doubtless from now onwards to feature in the lads mags and reality TV. One can only guess how that will further affect his view of her, but the only person that comes out of this well is him.

That’s the problem Aaron, people arguing about Brand and Ross aren’t arguing about them, they’re only arguing about the BBC and creating havoc in the process.

septicisle: And a load of celebrities that have shown more civility and objectivity over this subject than our politicians have managed. This is the week the world really turned inside out, when the host of Big Brother urges restraint and reason while the Prime Minister pushes for blood.

still, it makes a change for Brown to talk about something other than making “responsible decisions for the long-term” – even he must be getting bored with repeating the same words in different permutations. The chance to talk about another topic must have come as manna from heaven.

“even he must be getting bored with repeating the same words in different permutations.”

He managed the economy one for years, I’d say we won’t stop hearing this bullshit we’ve been hearing from him any time soon. Perhaps he should randomly choose a word from a dictionary and ramble on about that so we can courteously continue to ignore the waste of space.

By the way, this is a brilliant analysis of the political hot stepping that’s been going on to present the grand-daughter in the best light (and avoid legal action perhaps).

http://heresycorner.blogspot.com/2008/10/shooting-past.html

Carl Eve wins a trillion awards. Best comment on the whole shebang so far. Can either a) everyone who’s nonsensically pretending there’s a feminist angle to this nonsense cock off, or b) one of the many serious feminist thinkers who contribute here explain why this isn’t just a PR fight between tawdry slags of both (mainstream) genders?

Oh, and it’s nice to know, in the wake of Sarah Palin, that our demented wingnuts are giving our sane liberal Yank friends similar levels of amusement combined with bemusement. I suppose at least Paul Dacre’s reasonably unlikely to get his hands on the nuclear button…

Jonathan Ross describes himself as a critic, not as a comic so he should have been less partial to the encouraging of Brand.

If I were more cynical I’d say this has been hatched for darker motives.

The conspiracy theorist should be awakened by Andrew Sachs statement “I am a performer too” and the way this has wiped all other news from the headlines (especially anything to do with the political turmoil caused by the funancial crisis). But Sachs’ grand-daughter is clearly aspiring to greater prominence, while Brand and Ross have both recently appeared bored and underappreciated with their current roles (and, I daresay, salaries). That the footage of the stunt gave me the impression that Brand and Ross were drugged up to their ears should suggest deeper problems such as the psychological pressure of being in the media eye and overwork for obviously creative personalities.

Sachs’ fame itself is a consequence of the abuse he was subjected to by John Cleese in what is still the most influential and famous single success of the corporation, and he does have an understandable critical perspective of media intrusion on private life.

So all sides clearly have agendas to promote which could potentially be manipulated for effect by some shadowy overlord.

However I think the crunch is always inevitable when structural weaknesses play out in extreme circumstances.

Some while ago the BBC resisted calls to merge it’s regulatory body (BBC Trust) with Ofcom and this occurred during half-term week when many BBC managers were on holiday, so oversight would have been reduced anyway. So the recent policy drift of content standards which has seen a rise in partiality in the form of swearing (among other things) had an opportunity to boil over and snowball as festering resentments became bound in with the crux matter and the different regulators try to outdo each other in validating themselves by appearing to be tough in retrospect (when they’ve both failed to prevent the failure in the first place).

All of this of course is set off by the ideological question of the license fee which creates the context for public reaction – all such controversies eventually come to be viewed through this prism because this is a debate which has never been adequately or fully developed. In all matters of politics the BBC remains strictly and publically impartial, except this one where and because it is the subject; in all other matters of politics BBC impartiality makes it the forum of choice for debate, except this one where and because it is the proponent of one preferred conclusion (ie the status quo).

So by proxy the question of the BBC license fee has become the issue which protects the establishment classes from public accountability and preserves the hegemony of a Labour and Conservatove duopoly over publc policy matters.

At this moment in time both government and official opposition can be clearly seen to be culpable in the economic doom that is spreading over the country after decades of finally coming to a head, so it will certainly suit them that criticism of their shared failures is distracted by seemingly trivial issues.

The scandal of the oligarch, the financiers, the political donation and the potential policy favours also falls into this category, but as the story continues to develop it only shows the two sides as equally corrupt as the other and no public advantage is gained – so something else must be pumped up to take its’ place.

Add this potent mix of internal and external pressures into the brew and it will condense into a media storm which can get out of hand as different groups try to play the game of oneupmanship – so how do we respond?

We need a serious public debate about the license fee, from which the BBC itself should be prevented from participating.

To those asking themselves “What should be done about the BBC in the wake of this scandal?” I’d advise the following – go to your cutlery drawer, pick out the biggest fork you can find and follow these simple instructions –

Step One – Stab yourself in the neck.

Step Two – See Step One.

I like to think I’m a reasonable man and I appreciate that the scandal sheets serve an existing market – one that dishes up only bullshit persecution fantasies and dumbass outrages, but a section of the populace with concerns of their own nonetheless – but even I can only listen to this nonsense for so long.

Everyone bleating about this – seriously, just give it a rest. It’s really boring and your total lack of any sense of proportion is making you look like idiots. To anyone acting like they’ll never experience another moment of happiness in their lives until these two showbiz egos are ritually exterminated, please, take a day off. You’ve badly overplayed your hand here, making it painfully obvious that a) there really is nothing the papers won’t do in pursuit of cold, hard cash and b) that there are tens of thousands of perpetually-furious dweebs in the UK ready and willing charge off barking and snarling in pursuit of whatever phony outrage whizzes by as catharsis for their daily frustrations. It’s a sad, sad state of affairs.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s not that I find Brand and Ross entertaining myself. It’s more that the lot of you will be furiously beating your meat over some other non-story in two weeks time, and we all know it. You’ve whacking away all week but it’s getting a bit embarrassing now. Surely it’s beginning to chafe a little? Why not try just keeping it in your pants for a couple of days?

You never know, you might find time for more fun, non-moronic activities.

Perhaps my edition of the OED is wrong, but I’m not sure what the making of an obscene phone call, or crude leering over actresses, has to do with “polemics”.

As for soiling the BBC, well, it is clearly perfectly capable of soiling itself.

Lee and others are right, of course.
The licence fee is the key issue here.
If Ross’s market rate is really £6m pa then he will be snapped up by another channel at that rate; no-one who wanted it would be denied his “polemical” genius if the BBC let him go.

You may or may not hate the Mail. But you do not have to pay a fee to Paul Dacre just in order to be able to read another newspaper!

I don’t think the BBC is an issue, it’s just the only aspect in this argument that has caused it to make such a fuss, compared to half a dozen other instances that didn’t spark such “outrage”.

cjcjc,

I haven’t got my OED to hand, but…

Polemics: The art or practice of argumentation or controversy.

Polemicist:. A person who puts forward controversial views.

“But Ross’ on-show demeanour is not the point. The point, of this entire debacle, is that the rightwing press has attempted to make an entire narrative of this to soil the BBC.”

This is true but it obscures the essential point that the BBC is only vulnerable to this sort of attack because its existence is basically unjustifiable. Why should Joanathan Ross be massively funded by the state to behave like this? Why should those who prefer not to contribute to it or who feel they cannot afford to, have to serve time in jail? It is a sense of these iniquities that is boiling the blood.

And what “argumentation” does he practice?

I think you are confused by the fact that what he does may (afterwards) cause controversy or disputation amongst others.

What he does is in itself not the slightest bit polemical.

I see a role for the BBC, and it’s entirely constructive and informative, and would not – in the main – compete with commercial TV.

Well we’re in complete agreement there.

The trouble is that the BBC is signing its own death warrant in trying to save the licence fee by paying Ross £18m to stay “edgy” while e.g. sacking hundreds of journalists. Nothing could be more likely to bring about the eventual end of the licence fee.

cjcjc

And what “argumentation” does he practice?

Read the definition again, and this time pay particular attention to or.

I think you are confused by the fact that what he does may (afterwards) cause controversy or disputation amongst others.

Errrr, yeah – this makes him someone who courts controversy.

This is a pretty pointless discussion, as the definition is not what the thread is about. Oh, and the fact that you’re wrong.

This is true but it obscures the essential point that the BBC is only vulnerable to this sort of attack because its existence is basically unjustifiable.

Claptrap. It can be justified.

I agree it’s too big, but to claim the entire concept of a BBC is unjustifiable is just bollocks.

Why should Joanathan Ross be massively funded by the state to behave like this?

Ross is overpaid. But that’s not an argument against the BBC itself, no matter how you try to spin it. It’s just a poor value judgement.

Why should those who prefer not to contribute to it or who feel they cannot afford to, have to serve time in jail? It is a sense of these iniquities that is boiling the blood.

The funding model of the BBC is a problem IMO.

The original “polemicists” courted controversy through their arguments concerning philosophy, ethics, politics, religion.
Not through Ross-like antics.
He is not worthy of the description “polemic”.

I agree it’s too big, but to claim the entire concept of a BBC is unjustifiable is just bollocks.

The funding model of the BBC is a problem IMO.

But the unique “concept” of the BBC is precisely and nothing other than its compulsory funding model, and the justification thereof.

If it was (say) a subscription service then it would not be “the BBC”.

Do you think there would be enough potential subscribers?

(I mean potential subscribers for the slimmed down “quality” version.”)

cjcjc

You’re driving me down an alleyway.

The BBC doesn’t have to be subscription. I don’t see why a *much-reduced* service, concentrating on news and local services, can’t be funded directly from the public purse.

The BBC comedy and original programming could be subscription-funded – rather like HBO, which is the standard IMO.

I’m unsure what to do about national radio services. I personally would hate to lose R4 or submit to advertising. I’d like to keep public funding of the radio, but it’s hard to justify when some compete directly with commercial stations – particularly R1 and R2.

Some of you so-called liberals are so reactionary. You seem to lose your senses just because a story is taken up by certain newspapers. It’s the identical behaviour for which you slate the tabloid press. You have formed an opinion (and seek increasingly desperate reasons to support it) that Ross and Bland’s actions and more importantly, the BBC’s decision to broadcast it, are acceptable. You have come to this opinion because of the reaction of the ‘red tops’ and the left’s bogeyman, the Daily Mail.

Your proposal sounds good.
I too would hate to lose R4 – I’m listening to it now.

Though I don’t know whether I would want direct taxpayer/government funding of news.
Then it would indeed become the “state broadcaster”.

There was a good cartoon in the New Yorker last week.
Husband and wife in front of TV: “which news would you like to watch, preaching to the choir or love to hate?”

I think “objectivity” is impossible, and (surprise!) do share at least some of the concerns of the biased bbc blog.

Chavscum,

You have formed an opinion (and seek increasingly desperate reasons to support it) that Ross and Bland’s actions and more importantly, the BBC’s decision to broadcast it, are acceptable. ~ chavscum

No -one has argued that Ross/Brand’s behaviour was acceptable.

As I said: What they did to Andrew Sachs was out of order. They were offensive while making no cultural or political point. This is where programmes such a South Park differ, they use deeply offensive jokes for real political and social commentary. Ross and Brand were just being twats.

Let’s be honest. The Fail’s outrage is manufactured. It’s manufactured to create a narrative to bash the Beeb. So is it any wonder that we’re calling them on it.

The rightwing Fail apologists are tying themselves in knots. It was never about Ross/Brand. It’s a crock. The sooner you realise this, the sooner you’ll stop confusing yourselves.

If someone wants to write a reasoned article on why the BBC should be changed/scrapped, then go for it. But let’s not pretend this is about Sachs, Brand or Ross. It never was.

Top stuff, now we’re getting somewhere!

I’m in favour of a mixed funding model, myself.

The license fee should ensure basic minimum standards of public service coverage and accessibility, while advertising or subscription should cover the pure entertainment output and provide means to boost the public service side of things.

I have to say I think Doctor Who, Match of the Day and Eastenders are rubbish, while the national and regional news programmes are completely unwatchable (what with Robert Peston and co), so if that is all that justifies the corporation then they are on severely unstable ground. I see no reason why it is necessary for such programmes to be funded by a poll tax when they shovel aside any informative or educational content to the margins. Did I already say get rid of Robert Peston?

The Beeb does provide higher quality coverage when it matters but schedulers and producers do immense damage to the output on a regular basis. They simply spend too much time on branding at the expense of content.

Then it would indeed become the “state broadcaster”. ~ cjcjc

It’s finances would be linked to inflation and be shielded from Westminster by charter.

We should also remember that the call to Sachs recorded, so it was a failure of the producers to expurgate it from transmission. Why should no-name producers feel cowed by telling household names that thay’ve breached lines of acceptability, I’ll never know!

The thing is, if I had a vote on The BBC today, I’d vote to keep it.

I think the licence fee offers me great value for money, and I hardly watch any TV!

I love Radio Four. I watch newsnight a few times a week. I like QT and some of the comedy that’s transmitted. I think Alan Partridge is among the funniest things ever written.

If we went to subscription I’m pretty sure I’d be paying more for much less.

All that said, this is just my opinion as a customer. I can’t ideologically justify the licence fee and think it’s wrong that people are forced to pay for the BBC if they want TV – even if they only watch commercial broadcasting.

How can anyone, seriously, argue that you should own a licence to watch TV?

I’m for limited public funding for TV. But the BBC is bloated and is unfairly competing with people trying to make a living creating content.

But, as I said: I’d vote for the BBC as I think it’s a good service and offers me value.

I’m sure the sophisticated among you can see the nuance in my argument.

We should also remember that the call to Sachs recorded, so it was a failure of the producers to expurgate it from transmission. Why should no-name producers feel cowed by telling household names that thay’ve breached lines of acceptability, I’ll never know! ~ thomas

And apparently Sachs told the programmers they could run it (if they toned it down a bit).

So maybe didn’t tone it down enough, but it’s not a hanging offence. Or maybe it is in Daily Mail-world, I don’t know. They fucked up – they should have been punished, but this entire controversy is a construct and waste of people’s time.

If you actually think all this nonsense is justified, then I worry about the world.

Your nuance is well expressed.

But I think, reluctantly, I would today vote against.

Five years ago I would have voted with you, in favour.
But the empire building and arrogance has now gone far too far.

Unfortunately we won’t be offered that choice.

I got the impresson that when Sachs was asked if he felt ok that they run with it he said ‘not really’ – that’s not quite the same thing as you suggest Aaron. It seems the producers were intent of using the material in some state or other, as though they needed the content to fill the slot.

So, what, in this digital age producers and content managers are so desperate that they now abandon all scruples and avoid editing wherever possible? Did they want to leave early or something? If they are treating their audience with such disdain then they can’t value them very much.

So, what, in this digital age producers and content managers are so desperate that they now abandon all scruples and avoid editing wherever possible? Did they want to leave early or something? If they are treating their audience with such disdain then they can’t value them very much.

No. They fucked up. People should be able to fuck up, thomas.

You’re perpetuating this BS.

“Ross is overpaid. But that’s not an argument against the BBC itself, no matter how you try to spin it. It’s just a poor value judgement.”

But he’s not is he? Market rate dictates his salary at this level. Whether or not the BBC as a state funded organisation should be forking that money out is another question, but he is by simple virtue of what competitors were willing to pay for him when his salary was agreed, being paid the correct salary.

“People should be able to fuck up”

You can’t stop people from fucking up, but that doesn’t mean you should condone it when it happens, and when there is a sytstemic preponderance which leads to them fucking up you should look at reforming that system to prevent further fuck-ups in the future.

I’m not perpetuating anything, I’m looking at trying to stop the fuck ups from happening. What are you doing?

Ross may or may not be overpaid, but according to the standard set by his rate his producers are definitely underpaid.

There are levels to fuck ups though aren’t there? If the editors at Radio 2 believed they had consent when they did not then that is a mistake. As such lessons need to be learned but anything more than stern words is an over-reaction. If they knowingly put out stuff that they knew Andrew Sachs disagreed with then they are breaking the rules and need to be punished, but for all we are hearing this doesn’t seem to be the case at all.

Almost by definition, government departments (inc BBC) are not too good at determining what the market rate for anything might be.
Hence the extraordinary returns to private PFI projects for example.
If Ross was worth £18m to anyone else I would be surprised.
Or was there evidence of any counterbidding?

Yes there is strong evidence of counterbidding.

(and the returns-to-PFI are only particularly impressive when interest rates faced by private sector borrowers are virtually no different than those faced by the state – i.e. up until a year ago. Not so many secondary infrastructure deals over the last 12 months, are there?)

“Let’s be honest. The Fail’s outrage is manufactured.”

Of course it is. As I keep saying that does not excuse the “polemic” comedians and the BBC from broadcasting it, which many posters on this blog are attempting. The Mail has numerous “outrage” headlines every day. Very few become public issues. It just this one has. Presumably you denounce their treatment of the Stephen Lawrence suspects as well. The media, from papers to blogs, target issues they feel will resonant with their readers. They also report issues to create opinion. That’s why this Govt spends £ms on ‘media relations’.

“The rightwing Fail apologists are tying themselves in knots. It was never about Ross/Brand. It’s a crock. The sooner you realise this, the sooner you’ll stop confusing yourselves.”

You really should analyse the Left’s obsession with the Daily Mail. Its unhealthy and the dismissal of anything the Left disagree with as “Daily Mail outage, blah, blah!” is as lazy as the frequent racism accusations on immigration issues.

“If someone wants to write a reasoned article on why the BBC should be changed/scrapped, then go for it. But let’s not pretend this is about Sachs, Brand or Ross. It never was.”

No, it was initially, but as the story unfolded and the incompetence of the BBC, who failed to act on their own guidelines and follow proper broadcasting procedures, became evident, the position of the BBC as a State broadcaster has entered the debate. If in years to come, the BBC was broken-up and privatised I would guess that the Mail would campaign against it, due to much of its readership wanting to retain a fabled British institution. That would put you in a pickle.

Both ITV and C4 were prepared to go to £15m.

(remember the BBC figure would also take into account his radio programme)

If you ask me it was a silly amount to pay with the license fee. But that’s just an opinion. The facts are that this was the market rate for Ross, regardless of the outcry.

You really should analyse the Left’s obsession with the Daily Mail. Its unhealthy ~ chavscum

No it isn’t unhealthy.

It’s perfectly natural to loathe a newspaper that perpetuates intolerant bile and peddles bullshit. *Reading* the Fail is unhealthy.

“Presumably you denounce their treatment of the Stephen Lawrence suspects as well.”

Personally, yes. In an attempt to allow their readers to believe they weren’t racist, whilst also furthering their ‘the kids today are all murdering scum, except ones with nice middle-class parents’ narrative, they bullied the government into overturning one of the fundamental principles of justice.

The McPherson report, the conclusions of which the Mail strongly opposed, was the correct way to deal with police failings in the Lawrence case, and has had a significant positive effect on the Met’s behaviour. The Mail’s policy of labelling people who’ve been acquitted in a court of law as guilty (irrespective of whether or not they actually are) is an appallingly bad precedent.

[in fairness, I admit the government doesn’t need much bullying before it overturns fundamental principles of justice]

Um, isn’t this obsession with the Daily Mail a case of blaming the messenger?

So what if they don’t get the message right – it makes them an unreliable messenger, but it doesn’t change the story.

thomas

“Um, isn’t this obsession with the Daily Mail a case of blaming the messenger? ”

Ahahahaha, bloody priceless.

The Daily Mail and other crap rags were quite happy to blame the BBC when it’s message was “ooh Tory MP caught wth pants down/snout in trough” claiming it was the left-wing conspiracy.
Then the Labour MPs were quite happy to blame the BBC when it caught them diddling the reasons for war.

It appears that blaming the messenger for the likes of the Mail and the Sun is the only thing you can do – WHEN THE BBC IS THE TARGET.

This is not about the two vulgar “talents”, or Sach, or the TittyGirl, or the licence fee. This is about cold hard business “crush the opposition by any means necessary” dressed up for the likes of Chavscum to believe it’s entirely about the morality of the nation and an intellectual discussion about where our annual subscription to the BBC.

It’s a magic trick for the gormless – look, look at the naughty corporation – look over here – but look AWAY from what we’re doing so you miss our own appalling behaviour (like not paying corporate taxes, criminalising the entire young of the country, having openly racist and made up negative stories about ‘lesser’ races or segments of society). You want to fall for it, fine. Don’t let me stop you. But like the legendary git wizard David Blaine – if I want to throw eggs at the faking tit, then I and others will because we’re not fooled by the smoke and mirrors act being put in front of us.

Abracadabra – and here’s Gladiators again for you to drool in front of.

What Carl said.

*sniggers*

Crush the opposition by any means necessary…indeed.

(Assume you mean the BBC here?!)

Carl,
do you mean that we should behave like the Mail and Sun and oppose their existence or that we should highlight their inconsistency and hypocrisy in order to neutralise the false inferences they’re trying to implant in the public mind?

Broadsheet and tabloid sales continue to fall and lose influence because they are more snoozepapers than newspapers.

This non-story only goes to highlight how fleet street is no longer setting the agenda and should no longer be pandered to by politicians – the younger generation has passed judgement by giving an overwhelming shrug while the older generation has shown itself incapable of judgement by failing to root out the problem at the heart of the matter.

What is hilarious is that it reaffirms that content is king, or (and this is more to the point) that the vacuum in the heads of opinion formers (performers, journalists, critics, editors and politicians) is the cause of our discontent.

“No, it was initially, but as the story unfolded and the incompetence of the BBC, who failed to act on their own guidelines and follow proper broadcasting procedures, became evident,”

This never happened, why perpetuate myths?

Additionally the Mail’s calling the suspects in the Stephen Lawrence case murderers on the front page most probably ended any chance of them ever facing another trial. And there are plenty of stories about Dacre only going so big on it after he remembered Lawrence’s father had decorated his home…

No thomas, I’m just saying don’t believe the hype – have a good look behind. Don’t get fooled again. Who are you. You better you bet…

Sorry, listening to Roger Daltry.

That’s all – having travelled the globe I’m particularly proud of the Beeb. Having worked there, I’m particularly proud of the Beeb. It also annoys the living shit out of me, so it’s not as if I’m blinded by the light.

But what really, really gets my goat is the constant sniping, dressed up as “honest concern for decency” by rival firms who drag our culture and heritage through any kind of swamp as and when it suits them.

For me, Cbeebies exemplifies the very very best of the BBC. A channel for kids. Not a channel to sell rubbish products to kids. It’s educational, traditional, battles against ignorance, inclusive of all races, all ethnicities, able bodied and disabled, and has a lovely cut off time so my kids know that when I say bed, so does Cbeebies.

Just for Cbeebies alone, it deserves a bit of leeway when two jokey plonkers make a right pigs ear of things.

I’m quite partial to Radio 7’s comedy as well. And I’m Sorry I Haven’t a Clue was good. Dad’s Army was where I draw the line though.

Or we can have Iain Dale on internet TV, 24 – the 12th series, Gladiators and no sight of the next Bill Hicks on telly ever again.

Meanwhile – I’m sure The Sun never saw this and never wanted any kind of revenge… http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=999OFGq7WwI

And bears take a toilet roll into the lavvie with them…

Carl,

Cbeebies rocks. I know when I make my kids their morning porridge, they’re distracted by decent educationally minded TV, not adverts for toys and junk I can’t afford.

That said, Night Garden is just plain spooky and has a strange effect on kids. I think it’s some sort of Orwellian conditioning tool.

Of course it is, Aaron, it’s voiced by Derek Jacobi

Just for Cbeebies alone, it deserves a bit of leeway when two jokey plonkers make a right pigs ear of things.

No.

Well, rather, ditch the plonkers and all the rest of the me-too crap completely, cut the licence fee substantially, and shrink down to the quality (e.g. CBeebies, R4, R7) which other channels don’t provide.

Carl (ex BBC researcher), did you travel the globe on BBC expenses?

Do you want your kids to watch “all races and all ethnicities” on the telly to make up for them not having those experiences in real life?

Much Ado About Nothing, all this. If everyone who ever said or did anything stupid at work was suspended or sacked, nobody would have a job.

chavscum
No – I travelled the world well before working at the BBC.

I did, however, travel to Eastbourne on the BBC expenses to interview the brother of a dead RMP. The second class train journey was a lot of fun and the scenery was lovely, thanks. I think it was a cheap day return ticket as well, and I brought my own sandwiches and flask.

So, you just missed out on that particulary Mail-justification thread, you great big tit.

And living in Plymouth, which is whiter than that ginger girl in Girls Aloud, I hope my kids learn that everyone’s the same, even if they don’t get to meet them all. So Cbeebies helps in that respect, although we do get back to the land of my fathers’ occasionally to get a healthier mix.

Do you believe it is ok to make negative comments about people with ginger hair and pale white skin? Its strange, so-called liberals rarely send their children to multi-cultural schools. What are they scared of? On what basis do you feel an area with predominantly white people is unhealthy?

I think we can all agree that the BBC does expertise better than anyone else and that it does so because it can effectively shelter talent from direct commercial pressure which enables it to develop more freely and fully.

The downside of this is that the counter-argument of elitism is deployed to regular and good effect to effectively counterbalance any monopolising tendency.

When the BBC tries to be overly-populist (such as during much daytime output – especially on BBC1, BBC2, Radio1, Radio2 and the website) it is rightly criticised as failing or over-extending.

Just as Newsnight can justify its continued existence in the schedule while garnering an audience of ‘only’ 1m viewers by responding that these are the right 1m, the BBC and the license fee can continue to be justified by maintaining a balance between the breadth and depth of service. The BBC nevertheless cannot depend soley on the license fee, just as it cannot depend on the fee continuing at the same level in perpetuity – it must diversify its income streams in order to offset the risks to its existence placed by sudden changes in political culture and prevent it from becoming a political football dependent on partisan patronage.

Chavscum

I was using a comparison – in that Plymouth is not very mixed. In the same way, perhaps the Isles of Scilly aren’t much mixed. Or Canvey Island for that matter. I like the ginger one from Girl’s Aloud as it happens. I think she’s got more gumption than the others, particularly as she’s now said balls to the normal conventions and is happy with her skin colour.

So stop milking an insult out of a mere metaphor (or similie, I alwasys confuse the two) – otherwise you’re aptly proving the thread’s entire point (in that plonkers wil complain, because they’ll always find a way to complain because at heart, they are negative, bitter and twisted tits)

What the mix does is make people less fearful of difference. And thus less inclined to believe the raging bullshit which gets printed in publications like we’ve mentioned enough times.

So that’s one of the reasons I like Cbeebies – it’s kills bigots.

“Its strange, so-called liberals rarely send their children to multi-cultural schools. What are they scared of?” – hmm… in my case, bigoted fuckwits, but seeing as they come in any colour, whatever school they go to, I guess my kids will meet them.

You demonstrate the traits of a bigot, with your language and obvious intolerance of differing opinions and I suspect different social classes.

I am afraid the Cbeebies modern socialist’s utopia just ain’t reality. Here in London we become increasingly segregated into racial, religious and social groups. The wider we open the door, the more divided we become.

I am afraid the Cbeebies modern socialist’s utopia just ain’t reality ~ chavscum

I know what you mean. I went to my back garden last night, and couldn’t find Makka Pakka anywhere.

The lying socialist bastards.

“I am afraid the Cbeebies modern socialist’s utopia just ain’t reality.”

Look my little ray of sunshine, it’s for kids, it teaches kids nice things. Even tolerating different opinions. Which isn’t something the tabloids do, is it?
Not tolerating bigots doesn’t necessarily make someone a bigot.
That’s like calling Billy Bragg a Nazi ‘cos he hates fascists.

And as for “Here in London we become increasingly segregated into racial, religious and social groups. The wider we open the door, the more divided we become.” I think that’s opened a door where we know what lies on the other side, don’t we.

Don’t play the London card – because in a city of 18 million, I can’t imagine you’ve got the sole viewpoint. I’m sure I can find someone else who will happily say they have some pretty nice neighbours who have come from oversees, pray with their arses in the air and have a funny accents. And before you ask, just ‘cos I’m from South Essex, worked in London through the 80s, and the 2000s, and spent my formative years visiting relatives in Stepney, don’t think I don’t know how you big city boys like to exaggerate.

I’m happy for you to have your different opinions chavscum. I just think you should just keep them in the black cab you drive.

(I had that Richard Littlejohn in the back of mine recently. I told him, in my best Derek and Clive voice “get out the cab”. You can imagine what he replied.)

Would that be the same Billy Bragg who moved his family to multicultural Dorset? 🙂

No, he moved to be with someone else’s ready made family, who wanted him to live in Dorset.

Unlike the guy who works down our chipshop, who swears he’s Elvis

God know’s why I said that.

Aahh, Billy Bragg. The consumate socialist hypocrite. He berates the residents of Barking & Dagenham to welcome mass immigration that is rapidly changing their environment, from a country mansion in “white than the ginger girl in girls aloud” Dorset. What a C***!

Well done Chavscum – you evaded the reply once again by doing a nice little sidestep. Black cab on the road again, eh?

And here’s a small geography lesson for you Londoners out there:

Plymouth is in Devon, not Dorset.