What planet is Sir Christopher living on?

john

Tar and feathering is too good for these people. They would suddenly find a different song-book to sing from

Norm

I'm puzzled as to why the Police have not become involved, it was after all a criminal offence. It's not like there is no evidence. But then again we have the sight of many so called celebrities falling about the gutter intoxicated by drink or drugs and the Police do nothing. Yet if you or I put the wrong item in the wrong bin all hell breaks loose.

Mike

Couldn't possibly agree with you more Melanie........on this topic!

Ronnie

Well, you could hardly expect Kelvin McKenzie to say much after he has done exactly the same thing to British journalism over the years.

To feign outrage over this episode would be extraordinary hypocracy, even by his standards.

Jan Maciag

Don’t our cultural elite always justify their transgressions by an overiding need to take risks? Why do they need to take risks and for what purpose? In truth, these ‘risk taking’ exercises are simply a cover for yet another small assault on the fabric of our traditional culture.

Thus we are destroyed in what we believe to be the cause of liberty.

David

"and which has merely reflected public anger"

Come now; prior to the Mail writing on this, there were just two complaints. A fairer analysis would be that it's a mixture of reflection and egging on.

Given the context about the responsibilities of the media, it would behove you to be upfront about the influence of the paper in this affair.

Marin

Don't blame the messenger? I like the analogy with the Augean stables; I find it quite funny and perfectly appropriate.

Terry n June

I guess there's only one way to discover how edgy and risk taking Chris Bland likes his comedy served - has anyone got his phone number?
But I am not sure which is the more dispiriting spectacle: the pathetic, worthless Ross and his cowardly, retard chum Brand or the great British public in full hysteria mode.

Larry

And on Newsnight last night?

Ex-Guardian columnist John O'Farrell saying this was 'mob rule'.

It's not Brand and Ross's who are at fault for leaving abuse on someone's private phone but ours.

How dare the public have a say in what happens to their cash!

There was, of course, no counterbalance to John O'Farrell's view, just slightly different shades of it in the shape of the appallingly unfunny Jan Ravens and Stephen K Amos.

Where was the counterbalance?

This is not the same as paying cash for a Derek and Clive CD or paying for a smutty stand-up night.

This is about the arrogance of this poll tax-funded corporation thinking the opinion of those who pay for it doesn't matter.

Why the hell are they the arbiters of everything? Taste, decency, political balance and all the rest of it?

Brand may have gone but the wretched arrogance of the BBC remains.

Ed Humbert

Startling that someone so apparently stupid as Bland could have ran anything larger than the drinks float at the golf club.

Rebel Saint

"Come now; prior to the Mail writing on this, there were just two complaints."

That is immaterial. There were probably only 2 complaints because many - like myself - people are of the opinion that our opinions are no longer heeded or taken any account of. In fact, the number of complaints is often held as some badge of merit (a bit like ASBO's in other circles). The reason the "floodgates have opened" is because people actually have found that they are not actually in a minority; that their views and feelings are shared by 1000's of others; that their are sufficient of us to maybe force someone to take notice of us.

Secondly, if something is scurrilous and scandalous it doesn't matter how many people complain. That's a bit like saying it's ok to break the law as long as long as you can get away with it.

david skinner

Larry I also saw Newsnight, but what is more alarming is to hear good and decent friends of mine echoing the same sentiments : that this a storm in a tea cup.

Clearly to have one’s views valued today one has to follow the Hegelian and Marxist world view that presently dominates the BBC. Fasten your safety belts, folks because the next decades will be an absolute roller coaster of madness and unspeakable horror, unless Someone comes to the rescue.

David Raynes

Absolutely. Consent for the licence fee at the present rate and consent for the wide ranging "do everything" role of the BBC as currently constructed is surely gone forever. Nobody other than those involved seem to defend it. I remain a great fan of much of what the BBC does but change must come, how many people would pay for Ross or Brand on "pay per view" or "pay to listen"? That is the way to go. The BBC has become a monster, gobbling up cash and spending a great deal of it unwisely. Some valuable public service output is starved of cash while millions are wasted on what could reasonably be provided by the private sector.

Louise

So long as the BBC can extort the licence fee from the viewing public, the Corporation will essentially thumb its nose in this fashion.
It should have been privatised by Margaret Thatcher.
Let's hope that this discreditable affair ends the anomalous featherbedded status of the arrogant, biased, venal, and wasteful BBC for once and for all.
In these days of multi-broadcasting its privileged status, financed by public funds, is anomalous.

Rachel Miller

David
'Come now; prior to the Mail writing on this, there were just two complaints.'
Actually, according to the BBC itself there were 1700 complaints after the programme itself was broadcast. Since the story was published by the Mail and other papers (the Telegraph, Times and Guardian among others), complaints have risen to c. 27,000.

Are you suggesting that only the views of those who actually listened to the programme should be counted? And does that count those who listened when it was initially broadcast or those who listened to it on YouTube after the event?

Since the BBC paid licence-fee payers' money to Brand and Ross for them to engage in criminal activity, and then chose to broadcast it, surely it is the right of any licence-fee payer to write to the BBC to complain, regardless of how they found out about it.

Ray

Of course, the BBC 'takes risks' all the time when discussing or presenting Islam; doesn't it, Mr Bland.

Frank Pulley

Ed Humbert

"Startling that someone so apparently stupid as Bland could have ran anything larger than the drinks float at the golf club."

Arrogant, amoral, greedy, cunning unto Machiavellian proportions - yes! But never call the ubiquitous Bland stupid. Whatever he says, whatever he does, whatever strings he pulls, every single word he utters, every document that bears his John Hancock - all carefully calculated and designed to increase his influence and thereby extend his riches. One of the small band of puppeteers, behind the dark curtains of obfuscation, that really run this country. If he suddenly appears from behind the curtains and shows his face check the small print and watch for the next move. In this case - damage limitation!

Byron in Wahroonga

***the BBC had to rake risks and sometimes would go too far***

How utterly pathetic? What 'risks' are there, in boorish and obscene behaviour?

HFC

Christopher Bland was in full BBC arrogance mode today; do they (we) pay him a pension?

If the Rosses and Brands of this world want to make living from their unfunny infantile antics they should perform to live audiences in clubs and pubs. The paying public will soon cut them - and their remuneration - down to size.

Steve M

Russell Brand is not stupid. I find his particular use of language and his directness amusing and I especially admire the interviews he did with Mark Collett of the BNP (viewable on YouTube - search Brand nazi boy). I like him.

However, my likes and dislikes are totally beside the point. I don't want to live in a society where upsetting, offensive and (probably) illegal telephone pranks are taken as humour. A line must be drawn and the BBC must draw it. Brand, Ross and whichever half-wits at the BBC allowed this to be broadcast must be sacked. Heck, we're not talking about the death penalty here. After 2 or 3 years of good behaviour the protagonists of this piece will be back, older and hopefully, far wiser.

Frank P

HFC

Bland - do we pay him a pension?

I suspect we pay him several pensions in a multiplicity of ways and will go on doing so and his heirs and successors for many years to come. He was was one of the original architects of PFI or, as it later became known euphemistically, PPP for which you, your children (if you have any) and theirs, will contribute long after you and I have gone to the only place you can escape from him and his ilk - Oblivion!

Mark Cameron

A poster on the BBC Have Your Say Blog posted the BBC rules for posting on HYS:

"The first two rules for the BBC Messageboards state:

Do not post messages which are racist, sexist, homophobic, sexually explicit or abusive
Do not use swear words or other language likely to offend"

This rather amused me, as it shows that there is one rule for them and another for us. As many posters here as well as all over the UK have stated that we'd be in a police cell quicker than speeding bullet, had we have done the same to a member of the public.

I am intrigued to see what the BBC do to 'Jonafin Woss', although I highly doubt that he will be sacked. I am also completely perplexed at the response from Christopher Bland as well. Talk about 'shooting the messenger'.
IT sums up just how decadent our society has become when being abusive to another, on a RADIO show, in order to get a laugh is even contemplated. From watching television reports, it seems the age gap is huge as the older generation thought this behaviour was despicable whereas the younger couldn't see what the big deal was.

Then again, we all know from past postings of Melanie's just how she feels about the NuLabour Government and how they've managed to destroy our society and culture, ripping out the integrity from our foundations. And now we can see, just how the Conservatives feel as well, which is no different to NuLabour.

Martin

Get over it! The worst thing about this whole affair is how all the banal idiots in this country have milked the opportunity to put an action to their pathetic concerns - would that they cared about something important! Imagine what could be done in the world if hysteria like this was put to positive use. Ms. Phillips hysterical energy output would be enough to power a capital city.
Grow up,shut up, and do something worthwhile with your lives instead of perpetuating this pathetically childish celebrity obsession. You do more damage to our society with your petty vindictiveness than a million foul-mouthed radio presenters ever could.

David

"Are you suggesting that only the views of those who actually listened to the programme should be counted? "

No. I thinnk it's perfectly reasonable to complain if you consider the BBC has not reacted as it should have.

Nor was I saying that it was entirely generated by media coverage.

What I was saying that a realistic appraisal would be to acknowledge the role of reports in the press, from the Mail and the Mirror in particular, on the propensity of people to complain.

When dealing with a story that is, essentially, about the influence of the media on people, it would be dishonest to completely ignore it and pretend the papers merely reflected public opinion.

Newspapers tend to act as chicken and egg- the both report and affect public opinion, much in the way of the maxim that a thing observed will change.

Things simply aren't black and white, although I appreciate forms of nuance to go down well in this particular place.

raymond joseph douglas

there is about the BBC,what I call "the Polly Toynbee filter"All views,be they on Israel,family and marriage issues,gay rights;all must go through the the Toynbee filter before they are fed to us!Don't believe me?Well,no one could accuse the BBC of having a Melanie Phillips filter,could they?

Nicholas

This whole episode brings to the surface an ‘angry child within’ at the BBC. Since its punishment over the 45 minutes scandal its behaviour has become more and more belligerent towards social and moral boundaries rather than dare to push against political ones.
Rebelling against its telling off this rotten teenager at the core of the organisation is well represented by Ross and Brand, employed to push limits in the interests of comedy and audience figures.

The only walls the BBC can confidently push against are the ideological ones found in much of the so called liberal media – so it should be no surprise the stroppy teenager, so desperate to prove its it still has balls, has taken to shock tactics of this sort and is now desperately trying to coerce public opinion into the gutter with accusations of Daily Mail hate and attempts to cry cultural relativism.

david skinner

Norm the reason the Police have not become involved is because the Crown Prosecution Service is itself corrupted and rotten to the core.

Canon Alberic

Surely the most remarkable assumption is that the degrading pornographic comments are in some way "normal" for avant garde entertainment of a kind the BBC has an obligation to encourage; and the complainants are all Mrs Grundy's out of touch with the yoof.
Its a disgraceful display by an organisation that often seems out of control and run by fools and worse. No doubt we will soon be being encouraged to "move on".

Richard Buckley

And did you hear the feeble comments on the Conservative Media spokesman on Today this morning?

He was very concerned that 'procedures' should exist and be adhered to. John Humphreys was pushing him to say something meaningful but he just wouldn't do it.

No mention of simple human decency, not even any criticism of the demented monkey and the wosser, just 'procedures'. Absolutely pathetic.

Frank P

Louche, Lascivious and Lethargic.

Sir Christopher Bland; Jonathan Woss
And Russell Brand, don’t give a toss.
They’ve made their dough, and - whaddaya know?
We’re all to blame and share the shame.

We sit at home; we moan and groan;
Remote controls destroy our souls;
What’s on telly? Look at your belly!
Turn it off? No – not on your Nelly!

Couch potatoes, one and all.
Don’t stand up, lest ye should fall!
Sit and watch; scratch your crotch,
As the beams succumb to the old Death Watch.

Ye Denizens of a once great nation,
Arouse yourselves from this consternation.
Don’t be gulled by the BBC
It’s Agitprop, à la Twenty-first C.

Ben-Tsiyon (ha rishon)

Another BBC 'leading light'(I can't recall his name) said, in a recent Radio4 interview, that while these two highly paid degenerates had "overstepped the mark", they are "brilliant and at the top of their game" ! So, their squalid antics are to set the standard by which brilliance and excellence in so-called entertainment are now to be measured ! No wonder that this country is going to hell in a handcart.

DM

Anyone is entitled to complain about what Brand and Ross did and the failure of the BBC to take a grip of the situation. You don't have to have heard the original broadcast. The BBC's failure to handle the whole affair is as much subject to comment as B and R.

Many of us have a fair enough idea of what Brand and Ross are all about and would decline to put ourselves through the misery of having to listen each and every programme to have the point proven. It doesn't mean we're not entitled to complain when second hand offence happens.

In this time of credit crunch etc. Ross's salary is an insult to the licence payer...so Sir Christopher Bland is very wrong if he thinks this will blow over in the short term.
More and more people are genuinely annoyed at having to pay the licence fee.

john doe

Considering the fact that this was a criminal offence,is it not possible to sue the police for dereliction of duty, regarding their failure to uphold the law and not take action against the BBC and these two neanderthals.

EC

One would imagine that after all the recent fuss and bother that the BBC would be trying to a bit more careful, but no. On last night's "Mock the Week" programme(Series 4.1) Frankie Boyle uttered a really tasteless joke about part of the Queen's anatomy that even had the other professional comedians on the show wincing. I doubt if HRH would have found it very funny either. No question of SOH failure this one definitely crossed the line. If they were trying to be careful the BBC could have easily edited this out but they obviously couldn't care less!
Check it out on BBC iPlayer skip to 27-29 mins into the programme.

It is a wonder that Boyle hasn't been thrown into the Tower and Bland stripped of his knighthood!

Verity

Martin, thank you so much for your post! It gave me the first laugh of the day!

There is always one of you - are you people cloned? - in every discussion where genuine affront is being universally expressed.

There is always one person who craves to appear more "mature" and above all this and, frankly, has more important things to worry about in his extremely interesting life than national moral degeneracy and dereliction of duty of an entity funded by the taxpayer at the point of a gun.

Every word you wrote was from the script. The minute I read your first sentence: "Get over it" I could have written the rest myself, so often have we read it. You are a particularly British type - actually, a particularly English type - and I think it must have something to do with the now moribund class system. You long to be above others. You crave it. You long to feel superior. But you don't have the talent or the skills.

You may not realise it, but your post was a long (boring) hymn to yourself and your imagined qualities of maturity and tolerance.

You are a type I really loathe. And how fitting that you spend your moral outrage defending the morally bankrupt BBC.

No achieving person would have felt the need to post this silly drivel.

HFC

Martin
October 30th, 2008 11:58am

Oh dear, (or should I say, Oh f*ck?) Martin's got it right and I am a banal idiot who needs to grow up put his pathetic concerns aside and do something useful...

Tell us, we who care about nothing important, dear Martin, just what you consider worth caring and doing something about? We, like obsessive sheep will then adjust our sad lives and employ our vindictiveness against a worthwhile target.

JohnW

Well said, Ray (1:04 am). This is the same BBC that is too scared to even print the words "Islamic terrorist" when describing suicide bombers that blow up innocent people in shops and restaurants. Not so 'risky" are they then, when they know full well that fanatical Islamists wouldn't put up with 1% of the insults and filth that they continually heap upon the regular citizens of this country.

Martin

Well if you can't work that out for yourself HFC you've just proved my point.

logdon

Was it something I said? C'mon this is the fearless and frank Spectator. Don't fall into the territory of the BBC or all that has been posted over the last day or two is rendered meaningless. Not one word of my posting is untrue yet nothingness abounds. Is, as they say, honesty the first victim?

David

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1081722/Georgina-Baillie-Russell-Brand-obsessed-Fawlty-Towers-grandfather-bed.html

Dear oh dear, what smut. Where's the decency? Someone should ban articles like this.

logdon

JohnW
October 30th, 2008 1:34pm
Well said, Ray (1:04 am). This is the same BBC that is too scared to even print the words "Islamic terrorist" when describing suicide bombers that blow up innocent people in shops and restaurants. Not so 'risky" are they then, when they know full well that fanatical Islamists wouldn't put up with 1% of the insults and filth that they continually heap upon the regular citizens of this country.

John W is right yet my more, ahem wordy posting on the same subject is now rotting in the Room 101 bowels of the Spectators dungeons. It would be less frustrating to know why. Maybe then I could mend my ways or is it a case of a recidivist I shall be for all eternity?

winston

Who cares?

HFC

No, Martin, I asked you the question. Go on, answer it if you can. You are clearly so superior to me.

anne

I stopped listening and watching Ross a long time ago. I watched a re run of a Brand live show. Utter filth so switched off. Perhaps I am guilty for not writing to the BBC to complain about Ross and his ridiculous salary. I listened on You Tube to the radio show in question and Ross started the whole thing. He should have the decency to resign because he will not be sacked. At least Brand went.

Larry

David (October 30th, 2008 1:53pm).

What's your point?

How does that equate to phoning up someone's phone and taunting them about having sex with a member of their family?

Moreover, if you don't like the Daily Mail, no-one forces you to pay for it - quite unlike the BBC that can't wait to send letters threatening prison to people who don't pay for it.

Yaffle

For many of the Guardian-reading classes, the phrase "Daily Mail" is considered a knock-down argument.

David

"Utter filth so switched off. Perhaps I am guilty for not writing to the BBC to complain "

No, you see, you switched off. Well done you.That's what normal people do when confronted with programming they don't like. Not call for it to be banned so that everyone else has to live under their idea of acceptable entertainment. Bit like the Taliban, really.....

David

"What's your point?"

Where's the decency in slavering over the details of someone's sexual proclivities?

I bet they paid her to tell all as well.

I'm sure Mr Sachs loves having to see the details of his granddaughter's sexual activity in the papers. Poor chap.

Steve M

No, David, this is not an issue about their television programmes. You're right, we can all choose to watch them or not. The issue here is that leaving offensive answerphone messages is wrong and should not be used as entertainment. The sacking of Ross and Brand is a question of sending a clear signal.

logdon

Possibly labouring the point but wracking my mind I fail to see why the post was blocked. Then I had an idea. A cross media Rorschach test. One side of the posting fold goes to the Spectator, the other side mirror image (obviously corrected to read left to right) to an appropriate Comment is Free blog. There's bound to be one in that huge choice the Guardian offers. Then after the blue touch paper has been lit, wait and see which one goes off in true British Bonfire night fashion with attendant fiery sparks and bangs, or fizzles out like the urinated over damp squib it has been rendered down to.

Piers

I couldn't get over the discussion about this on Newsnight last night - the three people Emily Maitlis interviewed were all left-liberal comedians who dismissed this as the rantings of the Daily Mail readership etc. It just shows how arrogant these 'entertainers' are, their attitudes to life all coming from the same smug spectrum of metropolitan guardianista opinion. There was no one on the panel to offer a moral view, ie. that this reaction might just possibly be because the public is sick of nihilistic mockery and this was an opportunity to express it. Those who work in British broadcasting live in a different universe.

nicodemus31

Advert seen on bus shelter this morning for Ross's book (out now): "Oops, did I really just say that?" with picture of Ross with hand covering mouth in mock shame. [or something very similar].

I smell a rat with its publicity hat on.

Brian Moshe

The following article about Sir Christopher Bland may be of interest. It's in the Observer on-line archives:

Bland faith shows through
The Observer, Sunday July 27 2003

"What motivated BT chairman Sir Christopher Bland's 'robust' defence of the corporation on the Today programme last week? Frank Kane tried to find out..."

Note that, according to Kane, he threatened to sue the journalist Petronella Wyatt for saying something he didn't like when she interviewed him once.

Obviously a sensitive guy....

David

"The issue here is that leaving offensive answerphone messages is wrong and should not be used as entertainme"

Oh indeed, that is mainly my point. Some posters here are however conflating this with a general issue about content.

Larry

David says: "Where's the decency in slavering over the details of someone's sexual proclivities?"

It was made public by Mr Brand - not by her. Once something is out in the open why shouldn't she pass comment on it?

What's more, why shouldn't The Daily Mail can pay who they like?

If you don't like the Daily Mail, don't buy it.

If only I had the same choice with the wretched BBC.

spike

Sounds like we should all sell our shares in BT - NOW!

Gregory Spawton

I believe that Sir Christopher is living on planet proportionate.

Mehran

I politely discussed this whole business on another so-called liberal blog, and immediately received a torrent of abuse from the lefties, who were all parroting the politburo line that it was all the fault of Daily Mail and the reactionary 'Tory tossers', and that it had been 'blown out of all proportion'. Whatever.

All I can say is Well done Melanie. Good on you, and the Daily Mail.

john doe

I've got no sympathy whatsoever with anyone who can sleep with a simian like Brand. Baille is crying wolf and operates in the same debased milieu as Brand.

Mark Cameron

Verity, great reply to Martin, that did make me laugh, but with you not at you. It is very true that he is a type of English person, that hates society and morality because he lacks one ounce of integrity.

Martin,

The 'pathetic concerns' of the populous are the very ingredients that sculpt our society. The 'pathetic concerns' of us 'banal' idiots, believe it or not were the very concerns that made Britain stand out from the rest of the World. It was the 'pathetic concerns' that created a vibrant society, of morals, goodwill, tolerance, liberty, democracy and of course the freedoms that you have today.
It is a shame that you feel the need to attack Melanie Phillips, one of the few moral journalists left in our society. She highlights an exceptional problem in our society, something that our Left Wing government has done nothing to stop and everything to create. The problem is you can't see it. However, don't worry, there are many like you and they unfortunately tend to be the younger generation, the adults of tomorrow.
You also completely miss the point in that there is not one person on here who is celebrity obsessed. We are certainly obsessed with a decent society that our 'anarchy' obsessive celebrities(Woss & Brand) are quite happy to do their utmost to destroy.
There is nothing vindictive about how we feel Martin. We are angry as we have seen this kind of behaviour before, have seen what it can do and rightfully so dealt with it in the past far quicker and more appropriately than the BBC have or ever will, I believe.
You fail to understand Martin that by allowing celebrities, who are in fact role models to many in our society, to behave in this manner then we set the precedence of future behaviour. If that behaviour is then made common place then law ignores it as it's part of daily society. This can then lead to exceptional anger from the victim who then may take the law into their own hands. It's all about keeping the peace really and Brand and Woss certainly did nothing to help it stay that way.
However, on this whole debacle, I would be sacking the producers as well. They allowed it to go out when it shouldn't have and because of their incompetency, Woss and Brand faced the wrath of the general public, something that could easily have been avoided, had the producers done their jobs properly although, Woss and Brand would have messed up in the future on a live broadcast.
We have done no damage to society and I really think Martin that you need to step back, take a deep breath and look at the situation from all perspectives and all possible outcomes before writing on a blog and showing to many how stupid you really are. A little suggestion if you may, think first before you write.

Punklin

Why are so many of these contibutions blogs so angry and small-minded? I can see both sides of the story - let's hear a bit more tolerance, folks!

Dixon

Is it not profoundly curious that the timing of this incident and its culmination, peaks with front-page coverage on many newspapers of Brands resignation THE VERY DAY THAT PART ONE OF HIS NEW SERIES IS SCHEDULED TO APPEAR ON CHANNWEL 4?

I begin to smell a\ particularly foul rat!

Dave

Rachel Miller: Nope. Just two complaints before the Mail got involved.
What scares me is that the Mail and Mel are now in charge of our public morals. I don't pay for them, I don't want them to get involved. Please stay out of my life. As a Conservative it's none of your business.
On the other hand I pay my Licence Fee and overall the BBC may sometimes offend but it never tells me how to live my life.
Perfect

joe mccrossan

does this pair of slightly talented tossers understand the word decent

Byron in Wahroonga

**the worst thing about this whole affair is how all the banal idiots in this country***

Martin, are you posting from BBC HQ? That would explain your contempt for public concern.

Byron in Wahroonga

***Who cares?***

30,000 listeners, Winston.

Try to keep up?

Byron in Wahroonga

***(Brand) threatened to sue the journalist Petronella Wyatt for saying something he didn't like when she interviewed him once***

It all fits.

Contemptuous of other's opinions, yet hyper sensitive where his own are concerned.

Byron in Wahroonga

***this is the same BBC that is too scared to even print the words "Islamic terrorist" when describing suicide bombers that blow up innocent people in shops***

Yes.

Bullies are cowards at heart, John.

hadrian

Amen, Melanie!
And did anyone catch some media type woman on Channel Four News wittering on about 'hysteria' and how a mere verbal apology for what she still was insisting be regarded as a 'joke'was quite sufficient! Bet if she went into a shop and got spoken to in such a manner her reaction wouldn't be so forgiving. After all, the victims in this case are only an elderly couple, their grand daughter and the rest of their family circle as Mr Sachs has pointed out himself...so that's ok , then. To deride our indignation at these louts as 'hysteria' simply heaps insult upon injury. And your point about it being done in relative obscurity ( only a few million listening!) again beggars belief. These fools cannot even reason properly. As I suspected all along that overpaid jumped up numbskull, Ross, appears to be getting off lightly. In no other walk of life could such crude behaviour get off so leniently. Thompson is like one of those most useless schoolmasters who keeps issuing warnings to his recalcitrant pupils but never carries out the threat so they simply ignore him. Ross must be banking on his 'celebrity pulling power' leverage to get him through the 'ballyhoo'. I still say he should be sacked, all the more so when one hears of the further 'edited out' unspeakable obscenities they honestly imagined fitting for the National State Broadcaster to put out!!!How our nation has horribly fallen. The worst aspect is certain sections of the media trying to alienate our youth from even a semblance of decency and respect by suggesting younger folks don't share the outrage and do find it funny. Sadly from some interviews it'd appear there's an element of truth in this.Of course the victims ( including one of that very generation) don't quite see it that way!

Dave

Byron in Wahroonga: No. Just 2 listeners cared. Plenty of those complaining don't even know that this was a late night radio show, not tv.
Mind you plenty can't even spell licenCe either.
Silent Majorities should be careful, there might be a bigger silent majority out there that takes the opposite view.

hadrian

Bravo, Dave!
Trust you'll be so forgiving when next some 'menial' decides to curse and swear at you and demean your family members in public. Enjoy the degradation!
And, yes, some of us are perfectly literate enough to know the difference between 'licence' and 'license' in British spelling.

Spencer de Vere

Re "Mark Thompson, has finally cut short his holiday and expedited the BBC inquiry into the affair"

That's a dead giveaway. Why have an enquiry ? It's not a highly complex matter. the facts are clear & simple. Two perverts used their highly-paid BBC employment to publicly harrass and offend an old gentleman. They shouldn't just be sacked; they should be prosecuted.

Dixon

Dave
October 30th, 2008 11:37pm
"Byron in Wahroonga: No. Just 2 listeners cared. Plenty of those complaining don't even know that this was a late night radio show, not tv.
Mind you plenty can't even spell licenCe either.
Silent Majorities should be careful, there might be a bigger silent majority out there that takes the opposite view."

So, Dave, if only two people know about a rape ( the perpetrator and the victim ) that makes it OK then? Or do we actually have to witness it first hand to know that its an abomination?

Rob

Scrap the licence fee now!!!

Sarah Palin's Wink

Dave writes: "Silent Majorities should be careful, there might be a bigger silent majority out there that takes the opposite view."

That would be the uncapitalised "silent majority"?

adamsmith1922

Ross is severely over rated and always has been to my mind

Geoff M

If you think that interview was crazy then listen to Lyons the chairman of the BBC trust on this mornings Today Programme.

He was completely unwilling to make a stand on morality. He felt that if we didn't give the young generation (who he described as Tommorrows Society) what they want then the BBC would be failing in its duty.

Crazy. Want bad stuff? Then go to the BBC.

What next? "How To" prgrammes for rapists, drug dealers and terrorists just because they would like it?

If kids want that stuff then they can buy Viz!

I thought the BBC remit was to educate and inform.

Raising standards not lowering them.

John Thomas

It is wicked and immoral that even a well-behaved, decent, well-mannered presenter (I suppose the BBC must have ... the odd one) should be paid this sort of salary - at our expense. Ordinary, hard-up, poorly paid people are forced to support the foul "lifestyles" of these cretinous, amoral hedonists ... Only in a sick former-civilsation like ours would this be tolerated.

Spence

As a libertarian I strongly obect to the way the BBC is funded. But those who can't see this is just a tabloid induced media frenzy are way off base.

Of course the Mail whipped up the frenzy. I understand there were 2 complaints in the week before the Mail article, then around 10,000 in the three days following it. The cognitive dissonance of those trying to rationalize their decision to complain as a personal one is laughable.

And to those who insist the telephone prank calls are central to their complaint - are you aware the Daily Mail journalist Victor Lewis-Smith made an entire series based on prank phone calls? Where is the faux outrage about his programmes?

(Also, were the calls even made? I've tried to find out, it isn't clear. Not everything you hear on the radio is real)

You all have the right, of course, to be offended. What you do not have is the right not to be offended. Therein lies the erosion of civil liberties.

Merseymike

Talk about 'mass hysteria' - basically, anyone who rants on about 'decency' and 'standards' should automatically be ignored, given that they will have nothing worth hearing.

It was a rather silly mistake - nothing more than that. In the long run, entirely lacking in importance.

Steve

I see Merseymike has risen in the infantile stakes. Second only to the almost insurpassable Martin. Why do we breed people who learn to type before they learn to think.

Well said Verity - sorry it took me so long.

Ron Todd

If only two people complained that tells us something about the type of people who would not switch off as soon as Ross or Brand started broadcasting.

I can buy the Mail or not as I choose. I am obliged to pay for the BBC.

Carol Gould

Peter Bazalgette of the Shilpa Shetty - EnDeMol debacle said on the Andrew Neil 'This Week' programme on Thursday evening after 'QT' that the public outcry over the Brand-Ross filth was simply the behaviour of 'the Internet mob.' With supreme arrogance he carried on with the theme that this was just mass hysteria and that the news cycles should have kept to stories about Iraq, Afghanistan, Congo and the US elections. His arrogance was palpable to behold.

Frank P

Carol Gould

"His arrogance was palpable to behold."

Amen. In fact to amplify what you write, everybody that appeared in this week's 'This Week', including its anchor, Mr Neil, were smug and elitist to a nauseous record level (I have hitherto been a fan of the programme and its predecessor The Midnight Hour – this episode blew it, Andrew).

The hypocritical apologies from the BBC, immediately followed by enough footage-cum-mileage to circle the Earth, of arrogant self-justification about 'cutting edge' broadcasting, since the shit hit the fan is amazing, even to those of us who think the BBC's comeuppance is long overdue.

They just don't get it, do they? This was really not about just this incident: the flabby overpaid Ross, or the looney vagrant that was complicit in this childish cruelty. (Btw I reserve the right to suspect that it was a PR stunt gone horribly wrong, with all the players, including the 'victims' possibly involved; but even simulated cruelty should not be disseminated on a Station funded by a reluctant taxpayer).

No, the inundation of complaints that ensued from the articles of Melanie and others about this episode, was the damn bursting from years of pent up anger of a frustrated listening and viewing public that has been betrayed for many years by successive governments that have allowed the National Broadcaster to sink into a morass of stupidity, depravity and biased political reporting that is obnoxious. It outrages the vast majority of punters who resent having to pay an annual tax of 150 quid or so and get bullied into paying it by menacing ads that a loan shark would shrink from employing against non-payers. Just so that slugs like Ross can egg on brainwashed chimps like Brand can take the piss out the them.

I came into this world nearly 75 years ago, as my mother listened to the soothing sounds of classical music broadcast by the BBC. I have funded the Corporation, either through the auspices of my late parents, or my own pay packets, for the whole of my life. I shall legally stop paying the tax early next year. I deeply resent one penny of what I have paid for BBC Agitprop being used in the culture war by those that have now captured the Corporation and use much of it to reward their debauched pals for destroying our traditions and erstwhile decent way of life. It's time to break it up this monolithic monster and disperse the smug arrogant parasites to take their chances in the free market (supposing that isn't already destroyed forever, also).

Joe Strummer

Larry - Piers

Exactly. How impartial and neutral of the BBC to make up the panel on Newsnight of left-wing supporters and working colleagues of both Ross and Brand ? They weren't going to be calling for their sackings were they ? The worst was O'Farrell and his embarrassing attempt to patronise the discussion by writing off the "storm in a teacup" as " mob rule" whipped up by the tabloids for their stupid readers who wouldn't just quite "get" this so called "comedy". Strange how we didn't hear of this "mob rule" from the likes of O'Farrell when thousands took to the streets of London to demonstrate against the Iraq War. This " mob rule" back then was the authentic voice of the British people apparently and must be heard said the Left.

The Dandiprat

David.

I don't read the Daily Mail, ever, but if I did I'm sure I would be able to look at any given situation and come to an understanding using independent judgment and wider experience alongside the views expressed in its pages. I'm confident also, that the average Mail reader is possessed of rather more than the Pavlovian knee-jerk charicature in which you and many others have invested so much.

Your suggestion is further weakened by the fact that this affair has been covered by all sections of the media, with pretty much universal condemnation.