What public service does Russell Brand's show perform? 

C Powell

The answer to your question is no, there is no public service justification for their shows, anymore than there is for all too many BBC shows.

The Today programme may have gone overboard on this story but note that (1) no-one apologised until the story was made public; and (2) we have yet to be told who it was who approved this part of the programme and whether they or, indeed, Ross or Brand will be disciplined in any way. If they are not then we can only draw the conclusion that the BBC's apology is not very sincere.

Much more of this and the case for a compulsory licence fee will weaken further. Odd that the BBC can't see this.....

Tom

Well... people like listening to the radio, and sometimes when they listen, they like to listen to things that are entertaining.

This is the public service that the show provides. Providing radio that people want to listen to. If you think about it it isn't that difficult to work out what public service it provides.

I'm not sure why you find it so difficult to understand.

Sarah

Quite.

I read his booky wook last Christmas and - apart from its sickening self-obsession - it really lifted the veil on the new 'comedy' world.

To be an accepted part of this world and to get the BBC and Channel 4 commissioners on your side, you must display your political credentials.

It never used to be like this.

And what must those political credentials be?

You guessed it.

There was one passage where Brand admits his political illiteracy and he named a friend who he relies on for political opinions.

So none of this is even genuine. It's just part of entering the crowd. Towards the end of the book there's an atrocious paragraph on Israel/Palestine.

So it goes, though.

This is the comedy hegemony: the far Left must be trumpeted at every opportunity.

Who cares if he makes spiteful phone calls, he's Left wing, innit?

JR

I really enjoy the Russell Brand shows, and indeed the Jonathan Ross shows. I think they have both become huge successes because the BBC was able to invest in them and then let them find their own market. In particular the BBC listen again (and now iplayer) service have shown how the BBC excels at producing destination radio - just look at the itunes chart.

The Dandiprat

The BBC can pick through this as much as it likes but as long as this fool is still on the payroll, his actions are condoned.

I didn't catch the initial call to Mr Sachs but I did hear Brand's apology, which wasn't an apology at all, but was itself a slap in the face. He seemed to be trying to make the bizarre case that any wrong he might have commited, was as nothing to the evils wrought as a result of WW2?

His writhing was embarrassing but he kept up his front - no way was he going to show any humility at all. Just vile.

AR

But interesting that they never interviwed Robin Aitken once with regards to his book: "Can we trust the BBC?" or preference Robert Peston's reports on George Osborne with a warning to readers/listeners that Osborne reporting him to the SFO.

NorthernJohn

Yes, it's a particularly foul episode.

Even when not as offensive as this, why the BBC gets away with broadcasting this sort of drivel is beyond me. If they want to produce it to sell to a commercial broadcaster, then that's one thing, but to give it airspace on it's own network is another.

But good on the BBC for covering it prominently. Had they not, they'd be accused of a cover up.

Austin Barry

Brand and Ross are horrible, leering, self-regarding oafs, but no doubt they entertain the constituency of the moronic which the BBC must also serve.

nicodemus31

Surely, James, you'd be complaining if Today hadn't covered this story at all? The 2 interviews were completely different from each other in every respect, except the main conclusion drawn which was that a senior head should probably roll.

Regrettably, as one of the interviewees in the 8.10 slot seemed to be pointing out, this sort of fayre is par for the course with the yoof of today. So, the BBC is being lambasted on the one hand for dumbing down, and excoriated on the other for trying to appeal to the Borat, American Pie III, Dirty Sanchez, LCD humour brigade.

I'm no cheerleader for the BBC, but it can't really win, can it?

PS: I'm surprised the police aren't investigating the incident under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, in which it is an offence to use electronic or telephonic means to leave obscene or threatening messages on someone's mobile or landline answerphone.

NIcholas

The Right, or perhaps more importantly the non-Left, must realise that they are an endangered species, soon to become a persecuted minority. The old establishment used to be the Right, the Left subverted it, infiltrated it and toppled it in the course of a 50 years "quiet" revolution, the final bayonet in the guts being the brilliant deployment of the Political Correctness weapon. Now the Left is the establishment and the Right must come to terms with that fact and face the reality that the rapidly undermined democratic "system" is not going to change the status quo. The state broadcaster believes and promotes the idea that any Labour government, even a stinkingly bad one, is better than the Tories. The rest of the establishment follow this line and even the last few remaining bastions of the Right surrender to walk the walk and talk the talk in the interest of perceived peer pressure. The scrutiny is all one way. The Left have harnessed the mob.

Only when the full horror of a totalitarian leftist state in Britain emerges over the next decade or two will any opposition find strength and, aided by the inevitable cancer which will destroy the state from within, deploy the appropriate methods against it. This must run its course, unfortunately, and until that time we will have to endure the bullying dogma of the Left in all its many forms, including so-called comedy entertainment.

Unlike JR above, who sounds a little too much like a BBC blog-monitoring agent provocateur, I find Brand and Ross about as appealing as pond slime.

dennis

Tom

This is the public service that the show provides. Providing radio that people want to listen to.

Your argument is foolish. If anything the public likes to watch or listen to qualifies as 'public service broadcasting', the BBC would be justified in offering a pornography channel.

What the BBC puts out is supposed to pass a public value test.

For me, Ross and Brand fail that test for rather the same reasons any mooted porn channel would.

cjcjc

Tom - are you being deliberately obtuse?

Commercial stations are perfectly capable of providing such a service, are they not?

oldtimer

Tom said above:
"I'm not sure why you find it so difficult to understand."

It is difficult to understand because those under 75 years of age are compelled to pay for this rubbish via the licence fee. They do not have a choice.

If you do not pay and are discovered you face criminal charges. The Big Brother Corporation threatens the citizens of this country that it has detector vans scouring the land trying to discover miscreants who have not paid their tax. Furthermore it says it has the name and address of everyone who has bought a TV. No more Auntie BBC image, just bossy and arrogant.

The employee of any private business that treated its customers in this way would, I expect, be fired. They would also lose a lot of business. The BBC`s behaviour, both before and after this incident, is contemptible.

Peter

I had assumed the inbound call was invited, though the outbound one was not welcome. Handing over the mobile number for this purpose... data protection breach by the BBC...?

Meanwhile some are advocating the issue should be dropped as it 'only' was stirred up by the Daily Mail, which evidently is a news medium whose objective news (at least) should not count, and as some time has now passed until most 'heard' about it.

Hey, I'm up for not counting anything dodgy I do if those who come after me only hear about it 3rd hand (say, from Capita, as I decide what I don't want to pay for) or later on... sounds like an advocacy for bringing in Judge Dredd mind, and that seldom ends well.

Hilarious how some defenders of 'liberty' can get pretty selective when they choose.

Ken

Sack both or return everyone's license tax, simple isn't it? In addition oblige CPS to investigate Brand, must be a crime in there somewhere (Brown's anti-terrorism law?).

seb

Your very own Ron Liddle recently argued that the BBC should abandon its mission of pandering to the embarrassingly large minority of morons in the UK and, instead, revert to an older, elitist public broadcasting ethos. For millions of citizens, watching self-regarding oafs like Jonathan Woss and Wussell Bwand on their television screens is the zenith of entertainment. As long as the oafs' salaries are not paid for out of the public purse, I can see nothing for the non-morons in the population to complain of.

David

I've heard of Draper trolls, but in JR we seem to have the very first BBC troll. The only people who still hold the BBC in such high regard are lunatics or employees of the organisation.

Ray

Mary Whitehouse was right when she warned that if we failed to challenge the BBC's creeping 'avant garde' attitude to broadcasting standards before long the result would be a society reduced to and obsessed by coarseness and vulgarity.

Behold...

Dalesman

I cannot understand why these two self-obsessed, unfunny people are still in employment. I think that "lesser" presenters would have had their P45s' by now.
These two spout drivel and are so overpaid for doing so that it's untrue.

Dalesman

Nicodemus31...Can't the BBC leave the dumbing down to Radio 1 and the various other channels that the "yoof" listen to?
I quite like Radio 2, but not when these two oafs are on.

Christopher

This will doubtless bring about a backlash from the freedom of speech brigade. Yes, we can switch off the radio; but millions also PAY Brand and Ross to indulge in this nastiness.

Ben

If this had happened on a Sky channel, I would have cancelled my subscription until both of them had been sacked.

As it is I am forced to pay for this offensive rubbish.

The TV Licence must be scrapped

Paul Lettan

Ross and Brand join Barrymore in the list of witless, talentless and boorish employed to entertain the witless and boorish. Growing up in the 80s and 90s, they and their fans were educated (!??!) under the last Conservative government. They and their BBC Oxbridge producers are the success stories of their generation? Personally, I blame the cocaine they can afford due to the overly bloated salaries thrown at them. Sack the bloody lot and get rid of the license fee.

Harold Vest

Have a look at the new BBC show Hole In The Wall. Must be one of the worst shows the BBC has ever commissioned.

laura

honestly, this issue doesnt warrant the attention its getting. Ridiculous really when there's so many other thingsgoingon in the world.

I listened to this at the time, yeah it was pretty immature, but a public beheading probably isnt required.

biggestaspidistra

" in JR we seem to have the very first BBC troll. The only people who still hold the BBC in such high regard are lunatics or employees of the organisation."

Not the first, I recall the BBC has a team rewriting wikipedia entries.

Jose Luis

How can these two guys be described as talented? They are nothing but vile, and being at the edge does not make them funny.I am very broadminded, but this is simply vile schoolboy humour.

the unutterable

I think crusty old Etonians aren't the target market for Brand. With all due respect, you need to stop referring to our patchwork of society as 'morons', the subtext that you are peddling - that morally superior because their humour is 'base' is reprehensible.

I cannot believe such luddites exist today.

If you paid attention to Brand, particularly his stand up comedy, you would observe the threads he weaves that challenge social preconceptions. It is people like him who create progress. Popular culture needs figures like him and stumbling across this back-slapping messageboard only strengthens my vehemently anti-Conservative mind.

I do agree on one point however. I think it is a story totally not worthy of such extensive Today programme coverage. There are people being maimed and tortured in the third world and yet the fact that Andrew Sachs can't take a joke is somehow 'news'. Andrew himself was a comic actor (alledgedly - now Fawlty Towers was base humour, if you want to start that discussion, but maybe this isn't the place), so the perversity of the story is mindblowing.

And yes, I am a total subscriber to Brand. And I religiously listen to the Today programme. And Newsnight. And Question Time. There are people that can appreciate both sides of the coin you know.

It's not so easy to find/define a 'moron', these days.

James Hankin

Moronic, offensive and pornographic.Irrespective of whether this is a proper use of public money, especially in what is believed are times of recession and ensuing hardship.But how hypocritical of Ross, he purports to be a family man , talks of how proud he is being a father - wow, what a role model to his children and others - great stuff BBC you have truly scraped the barrel.

John

Russell Brand's show has an audience figure of around 2 million or about 4 per cent of the adult population of the UK. Giving over two hours on a relatively cheap radio network to his output doesn't seem an unreasonable outlay to serve this evident audience (which has been built up over several years). I'm sure I don't begrudge the much larger sums given over to providing for similar sized audiences on the "cultural" channels that the writer no doubt enjoys. For what it's worth, yes I think this episode was puerile, Russell often is; he is also sometimes sublime. It's the chance 2 million people take every week. I wish Andrew Sachs well, and am glad that he is no longer the target for press outrage for his participation in that bullying, sexist, racist sitcom Fawlty Towers. Which, as I recall, was considered unfunny by many and a sign of how low the BBC had sunk.

Tom

I'd prefer my money to be spent on something I and others want to listen to.

The "public service test" argument is pure elitism and is, frankly, laughable.

Why should the only thing my telly tax pays for be BBC 4 documentaries about Iranian lesbian poetry competitions and a Front Row special on the latest Opera from the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia's foremost one-legged conductor, just because they have "public service merit". After all, the system you propose involves those in elite positions making decisions about what proles like me should want to listen to in order to make us more rounded individuals, rather than letting us make our own decisions without being subjected to a barrage of advertising every quarter-hour.

Your arguments go on to say that, just because it can be done on commercial stations, it should not be funded by the BBC.

I think this argument is also laughable. The BBC's audience share is huge. Larger than any commercial station, and I do not think you can legitimately say that anything that can be done in the commercial sector should be only done there. How would this system possibly work in practice?

Phil Thompson

Sugesting that every single programme the BBC puts out across TV and radio needs to pass a public value test is nonsense.
Most of the output of Radio 1 and 2 is only distinguishable from commercial radio because it has no adverts and, on the whole, less annoying DJs. That's sufficient for me at the moment.
Next up on argument corner: Eastenders - When will the madness end?

Derek Holmes

Who listen to this crap. Not I for one. If as is suggested Ross and Brand spout peurile childish drivel then they should be paid accordingly with jelly babies so they can vent their spleen by biting off their appendages.

biggestaspidistra

I remember when the Today programme was trying to control its own message board, shortly before giving up and closing it down. At one point up popped many new posters - John, Tom, Laura - all suporting the BBC's way, all with a slight journalistic tone to their posts. I know you're at it again.

Tom

biggestaspidistra - Not so. I work in Westminster.

catesby

Tom, of course you work in Westminster.

Only the man in Westminster who thinks he knows best would argue that the rest of us should be forced on pain of imprisonment to pay the salaries of Ross and Brand when we thoroughly disapprove of what they broadcast.

They must be sacked. Come on Mark Thompson, do the right thing.

The Lone Groover

Here's an idea!

With every compulsory monthly Direct Debit payment to the BBC we should each be granted one nomination to remove a 'celebrity' from the airwaves for the next month and one nomination to reinstate a previously dumped celeb. Total nominations are declared at the end of each month.

In this way we may get temporary relief from those such as Ross, Brand, Naughtie, Peston, Kennedy (Sarah), Wogan, Evans (Chris), Moyles etc (I could go on as I'm sure you all could!). We may also see an improvement in output and a deflation of some egos.

BTW - Three strikes and you're out for good - with those punters lucky enough to have nominated a 'permanent removal' to get a reduction in next month's DD payment based upon a pro rata share out of the salary saved.

Is that too complicated?

seb

To each his own. We live in a golden age [?] of libertarianism and no one really expects Comic Book Culture to be done away with or curtailed or censored. Whether it is fair that the massive salaries of, say, EastEnders performers should be funded from a compulsory tax on television ownership ought to be debated in Westminster. I would much rather see adverts paying for the thrice weekly thrills that Ricky and Bianca provide the nation.

Nicholas

Hmm. It's curious how some of the BBC supporting posts in response to a subject with no apparent political aspect have managed to demonstrate their Leftist credentials. It really does seem that our "impartial" BBC champions the Left and they it.

The "unutterable" takes the biscuit for an interesting display of bigotry ranted against the supposed bigots of the Coffee House - typical of Leftist hypocrites whose eyes are so often blind and cannot see.

Are all old Etonians "crusty"? Is this message board really "back-slapping". Does Conservatism really imply an unwillingness to broaden horizons, to think outside the box or to explore the avant garde?

The Conservatives I know are invariably more broad-minded and tolerant than most of the Lefties I know, who usually cling tenaciously to their narrow and spiteful little dogma even when it's blindingly obvious they are wrong.

John follows closely in a post that would be worthy of that ghastly lefty goblin Tony Robinson. The moral high ground seems to be slipping from beneath the besandalled feet of our fascists in commie clothing if they have to spring to the defence of those two other ghastly rabble-rousers of the Left, Woss and the Bearded Lady.

Tom

Nicholas - Not so, I am a Tory Member and a Libertarian. I support the BBC and I think that it should offer value for money.

I happen to think that entertainment is better value for money than some elitist notion of "public service".

Derek Holmes

I heard some overpaid BBC twit on the news this evening saying that they had to have an investigation to discover what happened. Surely all they have to do is to ask Andrew Sachs regarding what happened and a psychiatrist regarding why it happened..

mac

The open-necked shirt, cool, Armani-suited, cutting-edge contemporary management of the BBC in all its overpaid, hierarchical splendour doubtless found time in their busy lives to meet to discuss the matter.

But early action was conspicuous by its absence. Nothing demonstrates more clearly the gulf between management and leadership. A strong DG would have acted decisively and immediately.

So correspondent Tom is a denizen of Westminster. It was either that or a first-year political studies or drama student.

And there's Laura . . .
Some day Laura might find the nous to apply the 'how would I feel if' test: just reflect, Laura, if one of your elderly relatives had been subjected to gratuitous insults on air - or indeed if you had been the granddaughter. Still OK?

Tom

mac- your point to me is fair, but regarding your point to Laura re-read the article you are commenting on:

"there is a broader point here, what on earth is the public service justification for Brand’s show...Leaving aside the offensiveness of their calls to Sachs, there really does seem to be no justification for having the licence fee support the base comedy that Brand and Ross peddle."

We are not discussing the incident, so the "how would you feel if" test is not as relevant as you make out.

My points have been about whether the programme, which whenever I've listened is very entertaining radio, should be paid for by the licence fee.

The Dandiprat

the unutterable says:

"It's not so easy to find/define a 'moron', these days."

Thanks for making it a little easier.

Summer

Nicholas. A good post and I throughly agree with you, apart from one thing. When the mist cleared it became obvious that our friends on the left' never had the 'moral high ground' - and they are now fully exposed.

It is indeed interesting that only the bigoted, immoral, and indoctrinated, left think that bullying an elderly man, and a young woman is acceptable comedy.

I wonder if Laura would like to hear more about how Brown is ruining the UK economy instead of listening to Brand.

the unutterable, wants respect for morons, but is not prepared to give any respect himself. He enjoys Brand for challenging social preconceptions, and yet his post is full of preconceptions.

John reinvents the past whilst he drinks at bigots bar. He forgets that Faulty Towers comedy has stood the test of time. That the bully was the one being laughed at, that Mrs Basil was the one who got the upper hand. I'm not sure where racist comes in - was anyone hated purely because of their race? But whilst he thinks he's manly standing up for minorities, he sneers hatefully at those who enjoy culture - the implication being that his tase for vulgarity is in line with the 'working class' and so he is vastly superior. How insulting and patronising he is to them.

Well Larua, John and unutterable - why don't you find a little respect, overcome your preconceptions and get a little edgy by challenging your own indoctrinated standards and icons.

mac

Tom,
Perhaps if you re-read Laura post you will see that it is solely about 'the issue' (ie Ross's and Brand's conduct) and her own reaction to it, and not to any 'broader point'.

Getagrip

I wholeheartedly agree with "the unutterable".

Whilst I can understand the upset caused to Sachs himself, I am more concerned at the level of focus given to this "issue".
By the way, have any of you actually SEEN his granddaughter, and what she does for a living- he can hardly be shocked at the sort of answerphone messages he gets regarding her.

I also take offence at being branded moronic, simply because I enjoy the comedy of Ross and Brand. I'm 26, well educated and I have an appreciation of various comedians; I could (as an asian british citizen) take offence to re-runs of In Sickness and Health, or Little Britain, but it is because I am a free-thinking and unhypocritical person, that I can enjoy this humour and not take offence.

In my oppinion, most of the comments here seem to be coming from "self-regarding, unfunny people". My license fee also pays for Ross and Brand, and I'm happy for it- there are many things on TV I don't like to watch, but instead of complaining about it like a toddler, I do other things with my life.

I hope you all put as much zeal into petitioning Korea on human rights violations as you do moaning about inconsequential rubbish!

Simon

As I understand it, Messrs Ross and Brand are employed as cutting-edge commentators on this Modern Society we are bound to live in, using their cutting-edge humour and erudite asides as the mirror they hold up to reflect the risible mores of this Society in a cutting-edge, erudite kind of way. Although the renumeration they receive for these skills is very substantial indeed, I defy anyone to gainsay their considerable acumen in leaving obscene phone messages for a (now) obscure actor, who let's face it, has done nothing of note since "Fawlty Towers" ended. I think it's Wossy's and Brand's comedic duty to point this out by leaving what have been described as "puerile" messages on Mr Sachs' voicemail, thus exposing the fact that although the comedic character essayed by Mr Sachs in the said sitcom will long remain in blessed memory, even when Wossy's and Russell's bones will have been rendered to dust on the cheating breeze, Mr Sachs should be looking for a higher profile, and if that means Russell Brand must bring to bear his cutting-edge humour by making lewd and lascivious innuendos regarding Mr Sachs's grand-daughter, then I think we should defer to his judgement as an erudite, cutting-edge commentator on this crazy world that we live in.

Roger Thornhill

Nicholas @11:42 nails it.

Travis Bickle

Cutting edge humour, Simon?Brand's reputation rests entirely on his druggie past and promiscuous sex life. He's too self obsessed to ever be considered a great comedian. Why should he assume the public are interested in who he's slept with recently? Why did he feel Andrew Sachs needed to know this? He's a sad, hairy little creep. Brand I mean, not Sachs. The unfortunate knock on effect of all this is that the right wing press will turn it into a stick with which to beat the BBC and the license fee. Yes, the BBC produce a lot of shit; they're also the greatest drama producer in the world. As for Ross, he's seriously overestimated the amount of public goodwill towards him. His salary is irrelevant, what infuriates us is his hateful smugness. He needs to cut down his workload - he's obviously bored with broadcasting. Brand's bum fart of a career will hopefully be over by next week. Given that they've now get some free time on their hands, might I suggest the pair try some voluntary work? It might make them realise they're not actually the centre of the universe.

Simon

Hmmm... Guess satire is a bit wasted on you Travis.

laura

How many of you who complained actually listened to the show as it aired? How many people complaining are basing these complaints on their personal dislike of both Brand and Ross, as well as their annoyance at both their salaries and place in the BBC, rather than the act itself?

Some of the comments I have read here and elsewhere are so ridculously uneducated in what was actually said in the phonecalls. Many of the complaints are based on biased articles in newspapers and online, left by those who will take any opportunity to undermine the BBC.

Yes, the phonecalls were offensive to Sachs, and those listening to the show have every right to be offended by the language and subject's in the recording. However, the thousands of people who never listened to the show, and merely read about it and subsequently claimed to be offended are pathetic.
Offended by what? The talk of sex broadcast on a Radio 2 show? An outrage! The offending of a treasured actor, apparently too old to be listening to this type of thing. At his age, he shouldn't have to deal with the fact that his grand daughter has sex? He should be protected from such vulgarity? She is a member of the Satanic Sluts and i'm sure he was aware of this.

Brand and Ross have acknowledged that they made a mistake, and got carried away whilst doing a pre recorded show together as professional broadcasters and comedy figures. It is perfectly understandle that during the recording they may become too comfortable, instead of having the thought in the back of their head that millions of people are listening to what they are saying. The were under the impression that any offensive material would simply be edited out.

They have epologised and this should be accepted. But of course, the nation loves to hold a grudge.

Wills

The BBC's founding principles have been to "inform, educate and entertain". Lord Reith himself saw the importance of including that last one. Russell Brand is an erratic but often brilliant entertainer, witness loyal audiences touching two million – rather spectacular for a late night radio show when many of the target demographic is out partying and have to make the effort to catch up later via a podcast. It may not be everyone's taste but then they do not have to listen. Now they cannot listen, nor can the two million people whose right to service from the BBC has been ignored because of an orchestrated campaign from media with their own agenda.

Nic Davies

Russell Brand's show brightens the days of many people and is a chance to get away from it all, perhaps a lot of you wouldn't understand that and also need to get off your high horses and listen to one of the shows.

The comments were slightly over the top but all you media and know it all fools who complain, when you actually have no idea what has happened.

No one complained after the show, except for two people, both about the expletive, nothing until the horrific media blew it all out of proportion.

The vast majority of you are clueless, with no idea what was actually said, or about any of his other shows, so I suggest you listen to both before forming your ignorant opinions.

This country is truly going to the dogs when the media is able to dictate you sheep in such a way.

Rowan

The problem is partly when you open it up for people who do are not inclined for one part of humour give them half the story, and then let the hysteria take over. There is nowhere to go to say you support something.

I for one, don't like springwatch, bargain hunt, song's of praise, and actually to me they are offensive because they talk down to the viewer. What Brand and Jonathan do, is let people make up their own minds, and there is irony in what they say. Put it on paper, it sounds harsher than it is, if you don't get irony.

Andrew Sachs was going to be a guest on the Russell Brand show, does he not know Russell Brand's humour. Also people should be allowed to make mistakes. I didn't get the humour of the phone call till last night when I saw it on the Russell Brand tour, and all of a sudden it clicked, and it was hilarious.

To be moralising about Andrew Sach's family, when they want the whole thing to disappear now. When people are happy to take pictures of Jonathan Ross's children, ask Russell Brand's mum about his sex life - which is the same as what they did. And then hold them up for a public witch hunt, after people have gathered who had no connection with them in the first place is disgusting. And the thing is, these are the people who are doing it with intent not Jonathan and Russell.

Finally, where can you go to say you support something, there is nowhere. I went to the BBC soon after, and I know of 1000's of people who did the same and their complaint against the handling of Jonathan and Russell was lodged as a complaint against them. I suffer with severe depression, and Russell is my favourite comedian and Jonathan Ross is my favourite TV show. I would pay three times the license fee to keep them, who is going to say that about the other programs that they'd rather keep. Do we really want to live in a Blue Peter world where everything is spelled out for us, and only shown what's good.