The joke that went too far

First of all, it would have been an even more outrageous scandal if BBC had played down or ignored its own dirty linen by trying to censor reports of it on its own network. This would give even greater credence to the idea that this quasi monopoly in the media is no better than the censored news in Russia and China, in fact maybe worse.

1. Since the phone calls themselves whether they had been broadcast or not were criminal offenses, why aren't the police involved? Is prosecution likely, being considered, and if not then why not?

2. The salaries raise serious questions about the way BBC spends license fee money. This demonstrates the waste, inefficiency, and irresponsible way a government owned monopoly which has no effective outside regulations can act with hubris and impunity squandering money forcibly squeezed from every citizen in a country by what amounts to a tax.

3. Jonathan Ross should have been fired on the spot. Let's not forget that he committed at least one criminal act, maybe several and used BBC's facilities to do it. That he wasn't shows that BBC has not taken the incident with sufficient gravity, more evidence of its hubris and actions with impunity. It sees itself above both the law and outside regulation. Given the reaction of government, the police, and many in the public, it appears it can do that and get away with it.

4. Improvisational remarks made in public even if subject to review before broadcast should be made with clear rules constraining their limits. There are other liabilities BBC could incur besides harassment. What if they had made deliberate misstatements affecting commercial products and impacted their sales and profits. Couldn't BBC have been sued for that? This was not funny, it was clearly malicious and a deliberate misuse of BBC's privilege to operate a business and broadcast on public airwaves. That it is dismissed by some as a mere thoughtless prank shows the depravity Britain's social standards have sunk to.

5. IMO, this story was important because it was a clear demonstration that BBC is a loose cannon out of control. It has no standards whatsoever. It's rhetoric are merely empty words. It demonstrated this in the Doctor Kelly incident and was badly criticized in the Hutton Report. I don't see any evidence of a change in its attitude. Perhaps BBC should become a private company which will have to compete on the open market by selling advertising time if it can't be reformed. IMO the only effective change will come with a sweeping replacement of personnel from top to bottom. This goes for its main function which is to report the news as well.

6. The storm was wholely manufactured by BBC. Blaming it on others is a way to deflect its inescapable culpability.

7. What's the difference what the rules are if BBC doesn't follow them and there are no consequences. They broke the existing rules with impunity so what good would more rules do?

As a journalist, as an entertainer, as a media outlet, BBC has declined steadily to a very low point these last ten or twenty years. It's glory as the best radio station in the world is largely an artifact of history. It has just proven it vies for being the worst. I don't think such an incident would have gone unpunished even in an American small college radio station, that is how bad this is.

Mark- Absolute garbage. This wouldn't have provoked a single news story had it happened in America - ever listen to Howard Stern, even for a single hour? - and it's an entirely fabricated news story (as proved by the fact that nobody complained at the time it was broadcast). As for the licence fee, the "people who oppose" it are clearly a significant enough percentage of the population that the BBC Trust is afraid to make it voluntary (they know it would wipe them out).

JW

Also, can I just say?... I disagree entirely with describing these phonecalls as "obscene" - what's happening in the Congo is obscene - this doesn't qualify. What was obscene about it? The fact that it contained a 'swear' word? How subjective is that? The fact that it mentioned sex? Now something as normal as sex is obscene? It was a funny call, and the fact that hoards of joyless morons didn't get the joke is perhaps the most obscene thing of all.

Re Jonathan Ross. What seems to happen these days is that a 'celebrity' becomes a 'face' and then they get given more and more jobs, even though they seem to have no qualification for the job, (and are even incapable of doing the job that they were originally given - his friday night slot), eg Jonathan Ross reviewing films!! Jonathan Ross is just an expert in fleecing us, Joe Public, and the BBC seem to have very weak management.
Although the BBC is funded by our taxes, the public do not really have a voice. So many people I have talked to over a long period of time, think that Jonathan Ross is, well, just a waste of space.
As for Russell Brand - I am not a Russell Brand fan and never have been. Again, a man with very limited talent, (in my eyes), who then ends up on so many tv programmes. If he has talent, well I have faled to spot it. I do not think that Russell Brand belonged on Radio 2 and I did express that view to the BBC a long time ago. I am so very, very pleased he has resigned.

I've been hearing this story all week, but having read the timeline, this is the first time I've known what was actually said...

I agree with talkingtamara that Radio 2 seems a bad fit for Brand, though unlike her, I've a really soft spot for him - I love the way he uses language. I don't know how much of his public persona is real, and how much an act, but I'd have thought he'd be a performer that would always require vigilant supervision, except perhaps on late night Channel 4.

Ross, on the other hand - I've just thought in recent years he sometimes goes too far. Works and is funny if it's someone who knows him, like Ricky Gervais. But he interviewed Nicole Kidman a while back, and I thought genuinely shocked and offended her - and I thought she was right to be offended. It's as if he expects the public to find his bad manners endearing.

The BBC once again have shown a manner of two-facedness which amounts to discrimination against Evangelical Christians, one must not offend the brotherhood of entertainers, if Ross and Brand show had offended personally some Christian member of the public would the BBC have taken the same action, I don’t think so, but it’s OK for the BBC to offend the Christians, nothing has changed since the days of Sir Hugh Greene, who led the BBC onslaught of duplicity against the Christians.

The BBC received twice as many complaints (63,000) regarding the blasphemous filth of the Jerry Springer the Opera compared to the (30,000) for the filthy show of Ross and Brand, whereas they took belated action to the Brand and Ross show despite the fact that they took no action against the anti-Christ, Springer Opera, Mark Thompson must now justify the double standards of the BBC and the biased treatment that they show against Christians.

Once again the Christian licence payer has had their licence fees taken from them whilst blatantly ignoring their views and opinions towards the decadent programmes that are inflicted upon then.

Marcus:

Why not start a campaign to launch Operation Broadcasting Freedom and the US could drop a couple of bombs on Television Centre and Broadcasting House?

Lord Hutton could then produce a whitewash report absolving the US of any responsibility for the attack: “The Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand insults prove that the US had to liberate the British people from a quasi-monopoly broadcasting station which was brainwashing the public into a totalitarian mindset akin to that in Russia and China”.

Your post is moralising and hypocritical drivel from someone who is not backward in insulting anyone who disagrees with your mindless support for American aggression anywhere. If ‘free’ broadcasting in the US produces this kind of slavish gun-totting mentality in its population and numbskull politicians like George Bush or Sarah Palin, thank goodness we have the BBC (and, John, the licence fee).

I don't really enjoy football or strictly come dancing but I do not object to my licence fee being used to I used to pay for such programmes. I do like comedy and I used to listen to the Russell Brand radio 2 show whilst taxiing my teenage daughters safely back home. The show was usually edgy and good and I was happy for my licence fee to be used in such a creative way. And yes, a few years on I think my daughter’s grandfather would see the joke.

I agree with talkingtamara. Oh and John Wright what is really obscene are the salaries the BBC are paying to completely talentless so and so's like messrs Ross & Brand. I have never found Ross or Brand to be even slightly amusing they just spew out filth and inuendos and Ross's only talent is being short tongued which he has made a career out of. On the subject of Ross's £18m contract. If, as widely reported he would not get a 1/10th of that salary from another broadcaster then why are the BBC paying a salary out of the licence fee that is not proportionate to what he could earn elswhere. They should have cancelled his contract and renegotiated a much lower fee which would be more in keeping with his lack of talent. The savings could then be used to sponsor 'real' talent. If he was not happy who really cares. If Ross and Brand had 'proper jobs' they would have been sacked for gross misconduct and without a doubt prosecuted. There is obviously one law for the rich and one for the poor in this country.

John_Wright, you are John_Wrong on this one. Imus made a few nasty remarks and was thrown out of his job, he may be washed up in radio. Janet Jackson bared her breast on TV during the Superbowl half time show and the station was fined a quarter of a million dollars.

In William Crawley's blog entry, it was conceded up front that the phone calls themselves were a violation of criminal law even if they had not been broadcast. I don't know of a single legitimate major employer in the world who would tolerate the use of their property to commit a crime, it's usually grounds for instant dismissal because of potential consequences to the business.

You can defend BBC if you like but IMO this is an example of both the decline of BBC and of British society for tolerating it. This could not have happened 30 years ago. It would not go unnoticed or without serious consequence in the US. Even at a sporting event like a professional baseball game, an obscene gesture by a player to to a heckler in the crowd or to an umpire usually gets a suspension and a fine at the least. The kind of incident which ended provoking Zinadine Zidane to commit a foul costing France the soccer championship happens regularly at soccer matches in Europe especially in Spain. That and far worse are tolerated. Europe is a place filled with hatred, jealousy, and is headed for a major fall. If I read the tea leaves right, it won't be long in coming.

Look, this is a simple matter of people lacking in a sense of humour, and what people who dislike Ross and Brand patently fail to recognise is that there's clearly a huge market for it, and it's only the licence fee that makes it impossible for broadcasters to cater to it without worrying that they're - horror of horrors - not appealing to ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE at one and the same time. The licence fee is a damned disgrace as anyone with a brain understands.

A sensible British broadcaster would now hire Brand immediately and allow him creative carte blanche, perhaps making the celebrity prank call a daily event in the same time slot. Rile the curtain-twitching morons who complained about a broadcast they didn't even hear, AND make money entertaining people at the same time. Win-win.

I've spent some time this week thinking about my own daily afternoon radio show and how it would fare in Britain. I quickly came to the conclusion that I'd be fired within the first week as a result of the complaints of ninnies whose impeded sense of humour prevents them from switching stations when they don't like what they hear, most of whom are senile old prats with nothing better to do. Despite what Mark says, from a broadcasting insider in the U.S., take it from me that Americans are a million times more tolerant of what they hear on the radio (only when it's racist, as in the Imus case, does it pose real issues). This is a British problem, deriving largely from the existence of the insulting licence fee (which demands funding for the BBC at the point of a gun, ultimately, lest they find themselves without enough money to make the next contrived game show or the next episode of Eastenders).

John Wright said "I quickly came to the conclusion that I'd be fired within the first week as a result of the complaints of ninnies whose impeded sense of humour prevents them from switching stations"

You dont seem to understand that this wasn't just a case of someone not liking a joke. It was clearly a violation of the law and would still be a crime with or without the licence fee (forced tax).
It's probably thanks to Andrew Sachs that the pair of them have not ended up in court, and I think it's just another example of the lack of morals in this country which is getting worse because people with their kind and size of following think "it was just a joke".

"This could not have happened 30 years ago"

This is a strange comment to make as 30 years ago the Black and White Minstrel Show was at its height and Love Thy Neighbour, with its references to "nig-nogs" was broadcast on ITV.

Where were the 30,000 Daily Mail readers then?

And I didn't see the Daily Mail launching a campaign to remove the recently erected statue of Les Dawson in Lytham St Annes! Wasn't he the fellow who told the "my mother-in-law is so fat" jokes?! But of course misogyny was acceptable 30 years ago, after all, it was just a joke.

The BBC is unrivalled for its challenging comedy. What station produced: Hancock, The Goons, Steptoe, Monty Python, Fawlty Towers, Morecambe and Wise, The Two Ronnies, Reginald Perrin, The League of Gentlemen, Little Britain, Mock the Week, The Blame Game, to name but a few? Answer: the BBC. No station anywhere in the world comes even remotely close to it in terms of the quality of its comedy output.

The commercial radio and TV stations have produced practically nothing over the last 50 years. The height of their contribution has been Rising Damp. In fact, you would be hard-pushed even to remember an ITV or Channel 4 comedy. That is a measure of their poor quality. The reason is obvious: advertisers don't want to take risks and the best of comedy always takes risks.

The BBC's record therefore speaks for itself going back to the 1950s.

Most American TV comedies are about as daring and challenging as picking your nose in the loo. They are also - it has to be said - comedies with no laughs, Frasier excepted.

The attacks on the BBC are clearly a witch hunt. Marcus, the great defender of American 'freedom', wants to gag the superior British media and has assumed the role of Joseph McCarthy (or, as Roy Greenslade suggested of a MediaWatch censor on Sunday Sequence, Mary Whitehouse in trousers).

The licence fee means that broadcasters on the BBC are competing for quality, not funding. It ensures that we get Little Dorritt as well as Jonathan Ross.

ChainSmokinAlco: calm down, get a life and go have a fag and a drink.

William, I do feel the questions you raise are slightly defensive, but I will addmy comments:

"2. Is this a credit-crunch story in disguise? Jonathan Ross is said to earn £6m annually for three BBC programmes (two weekly television shows and one weekly radio show). Russell Brand is also a high-earning entertainer, with the potential for even more earnings as a Hollywood actor. Is some of the outpouring of anger at these performers partly motivated by resentment that they are earning so much money?"

-Well, so what if it is? If Russell Brand is paid by Hollywood, it's not much of our concern, but it is *our* licence money that's being paid out in these salaries. Don't forget there was a bit of controversy about Ross' salary back in 2006 when the papers leaked the £18 mill over 3 years dea - before the credit crunch.

There is a debate about whether the BBC needs to spend this amount of money to get big audiences - they weren't willing to spend huge amounts to keep the Simpsons or Neighnours (very popular shows with young people) and they lost them, so why spend so much on one man?

"3. Jonathan Ross was a guest on the Russell Brand Show. He is also a BBC employee with a contractual obligation not to bring the corporation into disrepute. But a guest on a pre-recorded programme does not take decisions about editing and transmission of material. He has been suspended for three months, which represents a loss of earnings in excess of £1m. Is this a sufficient penalty? Will the viewing and listening public welcome him back into their homes in January? Russell Brand has resigned from the BBC. "

-The pre-record is only part of the issue. Even if thew producer had intervened, said 'stop wqe aren't broadcasting that' - it would be too late for one man: Andrew Sachs. At least one message would have been left on his voicemail. And the only people to blame for that is Ross and Brand. Pre-record is not an issue there.

"4. Ross and Brand engaged in a kind of improvisational comedy on the show. They played off each other, without a safety net. They are edgy, verbal, creative comic performers who engage in high-risk comedy. This is what they do for a living; this is the key to their success. Sometimes a joke goes too far, as it clearly did in this case. But in the context of a pre-recorded programme, they were also clearly avoiding self-censorship, perhaps assuming that their words would be approved for compliance with BBC regulations by content managers. If this programme had been broadcast live, they would merit more condemnation; which is another way of saying, their responsibilities are more limited in the context of a pre-recorded programme."

-Again, you ignore the 'voicemail' problem which is falls on the shoulders of Ross and Brand (particularly Ross - who knew he was 'talking' to Sachs.) In other words, to Sachs, the material *was* broadcast live - straight to his telephone...

As for the 'edgy' comment - that's a matter of opinion as to what edgy is. Besides, Radio 2 is not reall an 'edgy' station as Paul Gambacinni has stated. It's not appropriate to have such edgy material on R2.

There has been a culture of allowing 'high risk' material to go out on the Beeb - but recent events show that a large portion of licence fee payers do not want this material at all - perhaps time for a culture change, even if it makes the BBC 'bland'.

5. Why did the Brand-Ross debacle lead so many news programmes for so many days? What does this concentrated coverage say about news values? Were editors bored with yet another credit crunch story? Was the displacement of a quarter of a million people in Congo not sexy enough to be a lead story?

-But this is a daft argument, if we only cover news stories of great importance (like wars, famine), we arguably wouldn't have any arts, or entertainment news. And who can say sport news is more important than war in the Congo?

Also, there's not much licence fee payers can do about horrors in the Congo, but they are supposed to have a say in the way the BBC is run. So viewers feel they have a role in the story, rather than a passive one.

"6. Was this a manufactured media storm promoted by opponents of the BBC licence fee?"

-I complained about Ross and Brand, and I did not read one newspaper article about it - I relied on BBC sources and clips. Can't speak for anyone else on that score.

"7. When the dust settles on this dispute, how will it change the BBC's relationship with its audience? Will we significantly rewrite rules on taste and decency? Will we tighten controls on high-wire comedy, banning more words and circumscribing more subjects as out of bounds? Is there a danger that puritanical approaches to broadcasting could, in the future, call a halt to creativity in comedy and drama?"

-Well, you are mixing up 'offensive bullying' with 'creativity' so I can't see the problem. Creativity can still thrive.

Ultimately it may result in the BBC pursuing 'edge' a bit less and that's not necessarily a bad thing.

I'm 29 and have plenty of places to go for 'edge'.

For Newsnight and Radio 4 I go to the BBC

@John-Wright

While I'm sure you would think of me as a sad loser with nothing better to do than complain (I complained and I'm age 29), and I in turn would find you arrogant and lacking in compassion, I kind of agree with you.

The problem is the licence fee - or rather, the cause of this whole debacle is the licence fee.

The 'ninnies' have a say because, as you acknowledge, there's more to it than just switching over - the ninnies can do that but they also have to swallow their money being spent on such prank calls.

But the BBC say that's the big part of what the BBC is all about - that's what public service broadcasting is all about - accountable to the public who fund it. So you miss the point John.

I'm sure Ross and Brand were (are) incredibly proud to work for the BBC - not only for the money but for the prestige of being a part of British culture and history. Some of the greatest comedy has emerged from the Beeb - how many iconic British comedies have come from ITV? Some, but not half as many.

As Wogan said, you can find talented people who would love to work for the BBC at half the rate others would get paid. In other words, Ross would probably work for the BBC for less, if he had to.

One answer may be to split the BBC into commercial and non-commercial arms. So Radio 1 and 2 are funded by ads and the public have less of a say in content, and Radios 3 and 4 are publically funded and have to listen to the opinions of 'ninnies' as you put it.

I would also add that in America, even Howard Stern had to flee to the obscurity of Sirius 'satellite radio' (whatever that is).

And I think he doesn't get half the audience he used to get because of it, though correct me if I'm wrong.

I have never posted a 'blog' before but feel moved to in the current climate re Jonathan Ross. I am a 60 year old Grandma so not one of the young trendies, but enjoy watching and listening to Jonathan so much at the weekend that it feels quite sad and dull without him. Yes the Andrew Sachs incident was definitely unacceptable and he does go too far on occasions but his Saturday morning show is just refreshing fun which no other presenter seems able to achieve. Certainly when Mark Lamar takes over, I always switch off - it's a different form of entertainment and not nearly as enjoyable. He certainly should be punished for the incident but as I understand it he has apoloigised, been penalised and the sooner he's back on air the better. I feel his style of entertaining is very quick witted, humouress, cheeky but normally quite harmless.

I'd humbly suggest listeners to try out Adam & Joe on BBC Radio 6 as an alternate to Ross and Brand, they're young, innovative and 'cool' without being 'cruel'.

Bloofs #17
Howard Stern did not flee. Satellite radio is a new format that requires a subscription fee. He was lured there with a very attractive multimillion dollar contract away from commercial radio and television. His programs were not insulting or demeaning but they were fairly sexually explicit and risque' by American standards. Imus on the other hand made unacceptable comments but I can't remember if they were racial in nature or about homosexuals. Either way, by current American standards for broadcast over the public airwaves, they were unacceptable. As I recall the incident, no one particular person was the object of his insults but it didn't matter. We find that some people from other countries unaware of our cultural norms violate them because what they say is perfectly acceptable where they come from. Nick Robinson was one such person who insulted President Bush at a White House press conference a few years ago. What he said when given a chance to ask President Bush a question directly may have been acceptable in the UK but it wasn't here. By American standards he humiliated himself, BBC, and the entire UK. George Galloway did the same in testimony before Congress. We've seen paid for hire murderers testify before Congress as in the Valacci hearings who showed more deference to our elected representatives than Galloway did. The culture that accepts soccer hooligans is becoming stereotyped as boorish to the point of insufferability. This is just another example but it did also break the law.

Bloofs- You're right, the licence fee is an abominable thing that uses the hand of state force to procure funding for the BBC, thus making everybody and the family dog feel a sense of entitlement and ownership over everything it produces and thus -ironically, since the stated purpose of PSB (public service broadcasting) is to cater minority programming that can't be created in a free market - ensuring the broadcaster can't cater to the minority who would find Brand funny! I guess the most underrepresented minority is the comic minority. Wonder who to blame here? Blame the licence fee for this whole, sorry debacle.

Your suggestion about splitting the BBC into commercial and non-commercial arms is the position I've taken myself and a suggestion I've made many times, once as a contributor to the BBC Charter Review. It would make the non-commercial side responsible for programs about the plight of the Sage Grouse, would be funded by general taxation and be about the size of PBS in the United States. The commercial side (ie. the side everybody would actually watch and listen to) would compete fairly in the free broadcasting market. It's definitely the way to go, and I'm sure the next Charter Review will find the licence fee untenable (as the last one should have) and implement something similar to this in the years ahead (since it's just unthinkable that public service broadcasting is a farcical idea in the first place and should be scrapped entirely).


Brian McClinton- I'm glad to know that you support the use of the gun and the jail cell for nonviolent crimes when it suits you, and that you're happy they were used in order to make Fawlty Towers. The only difference between subscription and the licence fee is the muzzle of a gun, and you know it. It's illuminating to know that you are happy to see the threat of a prison term used to make the comedies you love watching... but then I wouldn't expect anything else from you.


As for Howard, Marcus is right, satellite radio is an exciting new broadcast medium in the U.S. and, far from ending up in obscurity, Howard now has 17 million subscribers and his own on-demand TV channel. And - guess what? - these are voluntary subscriptions, not the forcible decree of government force.

I post on this thread somewhat tentatively because of my long-standing antipathy to Jonathan Ross - if this incident were to result in the termination of his media career I would seriously consider attending the next Clonard Novena in an Orange Collarette as an act of thanksgiving.

I am afraid I again find myself in general agreement with MA2 on this issue. It is not the nature of the humour that is the issue for me but rather what it says about British society that the bullying and humiliation of a 78 year old could be broadcast to a young British audience and be found largely acceptable by them.

Broadcasting of this type contributes to the loss of respect and consideration for age and vulnerability which permeates this nation. It is a highly visible sign of a sick and self-absorbed society. I do not hesitate to say that the actions of Ross and Brand are not only an indicator of but also a contributor to that culture of insulated individualism which has at its extremes the assault and robbery of pensioners for a few quid or the rape and murder of 90 year old spinsters.

Portwyne- I hate to sound argumentative, but do you think old people deserve respect merely for being old (as you imply)? Don't they gain respect for doing something other than merely surviving in living tissue for 70 years?

And I'd be interested in what you found 'disrespectful' to Sachs. Brand made jokes about having sex with Sachs' granddaughter. Isn't it actually disrespectful to assume that all grandfathers have an aversion to their adult granddaughters getting laid and -moreover- isn't it disrespectful to presume that he would have no humour about it? I hope when I'm a grandfather I could laugh at the intent (at least) behind such a joke, if not bust a ribcage over it.

Finally, your linking a prank call to assault, robbery, rape and murder may be funnier than anything Jonathan Ross or Russell Brand have said in their whole careers.

John Wright, people deserve respect simply for being people. We respect the dignity of others until they prove they no longer deserve it. This is how civilized people behave. Apparantly in Britain, that doesn't seem to be the way it is anymore. Not so long ago, Brits had a reputation of beeing aloof, cold, distant. Not anymore. The stereotype Brit is the soccer hooligan. This is the mentality shown on that program and by those who don't find anything wrong with it.

Marcus

You are making too many pertinent points on this topic, you shall have to stop. So many home truths about us brits!

John

This thread has taken off at quite a speed so apologies if I missed it, but on the other 'Not the Ross and Brand' thread I asked you if you could explain the difference between abuse via radio show which you find tolerable and abuse, say, in the workplace which is an offence? Oliver tried to (I think) but all he really said was that if Mr. Sachs took offence then he should receive an apology. But ... ought Mr. Brand and Mr. Ross not ask themselves what sort of comments might cause offence?

You asked Portwyne about disrespect. I think the disrespect bit might have something to do with the fact that they broadcast it to the nation.


Brian (this links to your comments on the other thread)

So smut is OK if the Smutmeister isn't full of himself. So how would we work that one out? And complaints originating from The Mail on Sunday are ruled out as invalid? BTW I don't read it. They're all journalists are they not? And, I'm not so sure that Mr. Sachs was actually on the show. I think they imposed themselves on him, one might say 'picked on him'.

So are you for humiliation as entertainment or not? As of Thursday the number of complaints stood at 37,500. Seems to me that that's quite a few people who might want to construct a particular kind of moral code. But sure if they are Mail readers why bother listening?

Take no notice of MarcusAureliusII - he's a blowhard living in California and couldn't have possibly seen or heard the programme in question. He loathes the BBC, has never stepped foot in Britain and spends much of his day bemoaning something - he's particularly concerned with the possibility of an Obama win, which by all indications, would make him apoplectic. Ignore him!

David Cunard- Please don't convict California by saying Marcus lives here... as far as I know he lives back on the east coast.

Peter Morrow- Sorry, I didn't see your comment back on the other thread. As a broadcaster of 'this kind' of radio, I'm familiar with the dynamics of these kinds of material: the answer to your question is that it's a matter of intent. The intent of a radio show like this is to entertain (whether it achieves its goals or not - in my opinion, in this case NOT - I didn't think it was that good a bit, actually). The intent was not malicious, in other words. Listeners on my show would love to have heard the subsequent uproar about it live on-air, and this would have been a part of the show and the controversy about it a part of the fun. I think it's quite insulting to presume that a 78 year old grandfather wouldn't get this joke and would be incapable of taking part in the fun of it if offered the chance, but whether he does or not would not affect the intent, which was to be funny and not to cause hurt.

I'm really talking about the principle here rather than the strict particulars, and I SUPPOSE it would have been prudent to ensure that Sachs would take it the right way beforehand. That's the risk associated with comedy of this sort, sometimes. But I also want to reiterate that I think the main villain here is the licence fee, which embroils everyone in this garbage whether they want it or not, and in which the BBC is thus the victim of its own constitution.

John

Thank you for your comment, I will think about it and reply later.

Brian

As I said elsewhere, I understand your point now - feel free to ignore my comments to you on this thread.

Peter:

Chaucer is full of smut, so is Shakespeare, Fielding, Lawrence, Orton etc. Let's have more smut. The real obscenity in art and popular entertainment is violence. Why do the moral majority ignore it so much? Why don't 37,500 people complain about 'Rambo' or James Bond or The Terminator?

As for 37,500 complaints, I seem to remember 3 million people in the UK marching to complain about an obscene and immoral war in Iraq, and it didn't make a fig of difference.

Of course, originally it was only 2 compaints, until some of the media - not renowned for their moral purity or rectitude - whipped up a frenzy of disgust.

And why aren't the moral morality complaining about all these bonuses that banking executives are still paying themselves despite a credit crunch which they helped to create?

The BBC is always an easy target and a whipping boy for public 'morality'. Andrew Gilligan and the Director General had to resign over Gilligan's report on Today that the government had sexed up a report on Iraq's so-called WMD. A whitewash Hutton Report sided with the government, but we now know that Gilligan was correct.

Ross and Brand certainly went too far. That is always the risk with improvised, edgy comedy. But ban it and you ban the good as well as the bad. In mitigation, Sachs had agreed to appear on Brand's show but failed to turn up. As someone who has spent his life in show business, he knows the tricks of the trade. He knows, from Manuel, that his public image is as a humiliated Spaniard. He is not some naive private person.

Apparently, the relevant part of the show, which was pre-recorded, was played to him and he was asked if it was okay to broadcast it. His comment was: "It's a bit crude, isn't it?"

A bit like his granddaughter, Georgina Baillie, who belongs to a group called the Satanic Sluts and told the 'Sun' newspaper that Brand shouted 'Que?' in bed.

Incidentally, the Satanic Sluts website says: "Welcome to the Satanic Sluts website where, over time, 666 of the world's most beautiful, depraved, attitudinal and creative women will place their images for your delectation and their Satanic grandeur - PRAISE THE LORD!"

If I were Sachs, I would be more worried about my granddaughter than about Jonathan Ross or Russell Brand.

BTW:

In my list of BBC comedies, I forgot Round the Horne, The Young Ones, Blackadder, The Fast Show and Absolutely Fabulous. Still not a commercial comedy classic in sight.

Brian- Holy crap, I'm agreeing with you.

Brian

Violence as entertainment is an obscenity - I agree.

On the war in Iraq - I agree

A morally questionable media? - I agree

Banking bonuses? - obscene - I agree

BBC easy target? - I agree

Satanic Sluts? - I think I'll not check out the website - but, I agree.

Which makes me want to think we might need to set agreed standards for broadcasting.

Peter Morrow-

I like you, but....

"Which makes me want to think we might need to set agreed standards for broadcasting."

Oh dear, oh dear. What happened to freedom to choose? Don't you respect your fellow human being enough to allow them to make their own moral choices about what to watch, what to listen to, what to broadcast? If they can't choose their broadcasts, can they choose their films to rent? Can they choose their magazines or websites? Why regulate broadcasting and not the web? Can they choose what to say to each other or what sex acts to perform?

There's a tuner on every television. Use it to choose what you find agreeable, and Simply Ignore The Rest.

John and Brian

I love people to be argumentative - in spite of my best intentions I can be so myself.

First of all I do think age alone deserves respect - I think that is one mark of civilisation and a society which fails to respect and protect the aged and the vulnerable has no claim to be considered humane or decent.

Mr Sachs' acting roles can have no bearing on his right to be treated with dignity. I am not even remotely concerned at the swearing or the smut (neither of which would annoy me in the slightest) - I am concerned that despite an awareness of the probable effect (Brand prefaced the answer phone message with Georgina Baillie's injunction to him not to mention her membership of 'Satanic Sluts' to her grandfather) Ross and Brand proceeded to make the kind of comments which they might reasonably have inferred from that injunction would cause offence. I cannot construe this as anything other than disgraceful bullying and insulting behaviour. If two council estate kids did it to an elderly pensioner they would rightly face censure and possible prosecution - I can not see any way which in which this incident differs from that example except in so far as the offence was heightened by being broadcast for the amusement of a loutish element in our society.

It appears Mr Sachs did not in fact find it amusing - and such is his right. What someone else might think in a similar situation is, I rather think, irrelevant - he has behaved generously in not asking for the full force of the law to be brought to bear on the matter.

I do not retract my link of once rare and now commonplace crimes against the elderly to the decline of deference. It would be nice for broadcasters to wash their hands of any responsibility for changing attitudes in society but I challenge their right to do so. When we strip people of respect we remove a layer of defence from them. When we mock someone we make it easier for someone else to assault them. When we dehumanise someone we make it easier for someone else to kill them. It is very hard for me therefore to give any credence, Brian, to your argument that we learn anything from history when you yourself deny this very basic and oft-instanced truth.

John - a repeat of my request - how can I sign into your blog to respond to your comments on our exchanges there? I assume, of-course, no censorship is in operation...

David_Cunard, John Wright

As luck would have it, I'm watching a large room full of braying jackasses grunting in what is called "Prime Minister's Question Time." Ian Cawsey Labour (Briggs and Goule) is worried about the quality of bacon being sold being inadequate to that in the Pigs Act. How fitting a question for the Prime Minster of the UK to have to answer. At each question and answer, the jackasses in the gallery on both sides emit their grunts. You should watch it sometime. After that I don't see how anyone can take the UK or anything about it seriously. But what surprised me the most is that this is not just reserved for the highly partisan period of PMQT but is anything from a constant din to a roar whenever the House of Commons meets. How appropriately named, "Commons."

Portwyne- As far as I know the comments system is open and freely accessible on my blog and you don't need to be logged in to do so. (I'll check and make sure.)

I find your approach to the elderly ever so slightly patronising, friend. You're treating him like he doesn't have brains or even rationality to respond to an exchange like this for himself, merely because he's over a certain age. There may be a difference here across the pond, because my experience is that people get 'old' very quickly in Britain and sit around and die after a certain age, whereas in America life begins at 65 for many people and they're active and spunky. Most American 78 year olds would like to punch you for underestimating their ability to roll with this by themselves, though I can't vouch for Sachs.

Basically my short answer to you would be that if Sachs felt the comments were unfunny, rude or insulting, he would have been perfectly capable of responding to them accordingly and the attitude of the 30,000 idiots who complained on his behalf was tantamount to acting as though he is a helpless retard without the wherewithal to respond for himself (it also presumes he objects to the humour on some kind of principle, perhaps the principle that nobody should ever joke about the sex life of someone else's granddaughter?; how arbitrary).

john I can't agree with your liberal free-for-all attitude to this issue. You say, "Use your tuner. Turn off if you don't like it." Then you say how wonderful the US is because this would be broadcast without apology. The equivalent in the US would be a network channel, not a pay-for-view cable channel. On the US networks, they have even tighter rules than the British channels. This would not have been broadcast on a US network channel.

As for the switch-it-off solution, it's not a solution. Licence fee payers in the UK have an agreement with the BBC about standards, which the BBC has promised to maintain. Standards change across time, I accept that, but this broadcast went far beyond the acceptable. It was possibly illegal, it caused hurt to an elderly man, it broke the privacy of his granddaughter, who is entitled to have her private sexual life protected, and the BBC's own guidelines and rules were not followed. A senior manager has resigned, quite rightly, because she failed to regulate this programme.

Presumably, John, you would place some restrictions on what can be broadcast by a publicly funded public service broadcaster?

Portwyne:

1. While your concept of a god is, by your own admission, somewhat complex (some might say, incomprehensible), your understanding of morality does not seem to have progressed beyond the kindergarden stage.

2. Comedy cannot exist without humiliation and failure: the banana skin syndrome is the basis of all great jokes. As Ray Galton pointed out to Mark Lawson on BBC4, the Galton and Simpson comedies like Hancock and Steptoe were founded on failure and humiliation. Success and dignity are just not funny. If Sachs had been in the studio, as scheduled, then in my view he was fair game (given his granddaughter's antics) and would have had a chance to retaliate. Their 'crime' was to insult him on his home answerphone. That's all.

3. Banter and insult are commonplace among young people. They do it all the time to their friends as a sign of affection. It has absolutely nothing to do with how they treat old people. As a teacher I have seen endless cases of pupils who are cheeky with one another melt before their elders.

4. Words are cheap. The real signs of a caring society are actions, not words. Before 1908 there wasn’t any old age pension and if you had no independent means of support, you starved. If you think times are tough for the old, they're nothing as compared to previois times. Agreed, today the Old Age Pension in the UK is still a disgrace and one of the lowest in Europe. If youy really care for the old, why not join me in a campaign for higher taxes so that the old can live in reasonable comfort instead of freezing in the winter (I know young people who laugh at Brand and Ross who do good work with the old, and they're not all religious either).

5. Where did you get the evidence that attacks on old people were once rare? The Daily Mail, perhaps? If you actually studied a bit of history or read Dickens, you would learn a bit about the maltreatment of old people by children and adults alike in the past. Many old people were forced to work long hours to survive. Old slaves in America were often worked to death.

6.You say that when we mock someone we make it easier for someone to assault them. I’d better look out then, since you have mocked me once or twice. Do as I say, not as I do, Portwyne.

John is it OK that the producers gave Sachs an undertaking NOT to broadcast this obscene material, then they broadcast it anyway?

Augustine
Ironic that you were censored on a thread about censorship.
(Well, it' sort of about censorship).

GV

Brian
Comedy need not involve obscenity or humiliation. Incogruity and a sense of the ridiculous is the essence of good comedy.
There doesn't seem to be a lot of wit or thought in the Brand/Ross double act. Can you explain the redeeming features here? Isn't that what got the dynamic duo into trouble? They accomplished notjing with zero skill?

GV

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Now, now John, there's no need for language like that.

You really ought to consider using a hyphen.

BTW I'm haven't forgotten about my reply to your other comments, I just don't have the time at the moment to put it together.

John-Wright-

What you say makes some sense, but ultimately, this is Britain not America. If you are currently in America I fail to see why you are so upset about this issue. I'm guessing you aren't required to pay a licence fee - so why do you care?

You made the choice to go over there - good for you.

The rest of us will handle the BBC until your return.

PS - Stern has 17 million subscribers on sirius? Good for him, bet he got a lot more than that when he was broadcasting 'normally'.

Bloofs-

I care about drug policy even though I don't use recreational drugs. I have opinions about lots of things which don't directly affect me because I think they're wrong in principle. Of course you're right to imply that my contempt and hatred for the licence fee was birthed in the UK - I lived in Belfast until 2004 (and yes, I paid the damned licence fee).

But there are wider implications for any policy (like the licence fee) which seeks to lump everyone together into a great heaving collective which must approve or disapprove of everything together or not at all. It's the general collectivism that I oppose, and it happens in America as much as Britain.

(As an example, someone chose to complain about my use of a popular swear word in comment #42 rather than simply ignore it: that's exactly what I'm talking about. We need to build a society that is happy to live and let live, rather than twitch at the curtains as the neighbours come and go.)

Thompson will go, as will Ross after he susses out a better deal elsewhere. With a bit of luck the BBC will suss out that self promotion has had its day and the license payers can get away from the constant product/ego promotion that constitutes lazy programing and over inflated money hand outs. The BBC Trust and management are pants. Funily enough there is a vacancy on the Executive Committee: Director, Marketing, Communications & Audiences. You couldn't make it up could you?

Brian

I do like your cheek in charging me with kindergarten morality in a post in which you appear to derive or prove general truths from the actions or attitudes of some - I wonder which university taught you that methodology.

I would ask too how his "granddaughter's antics" makes Sachs fair game - that seems a much too Biblical position for a humanist. (cf. Deuteronomy 5 v. 9 - but in reverse).

There is also the rather pertinent point that Sachs was not in the studio and did not consent to the humiliation as was the case of the actors (as actors) in the comedy series you mentioned. If you do not see that distinction or choose to minimise it I rather think you are in no position to preach to anyone about morality.

I am afraid I have indeed 'mocked' your opinions, attitudes and postures on this blog. I had assumed there was implicit consent to such sleggin from your participation in this particular forum where there generally appears to be no need to assume either particularly delicate constitutions on the one hand or a propensity to physical violence on the other. If I have failed to properly esteem your sensitivity or you fear that, say, PeterM or Graham will be moved by my comments to assault your person - please advise me and I will put on the kid gloves in future.

Portwyne

I consider myself, and on behalf of Graham consider him as well, to be truly, if not mortally, offended by your suggestion that we might visit upon Brian our ire and wrath.

How can it be that you should choose to single out two good and upright Christian men and identify them with such sin? ;-)

Have we in some way unbeknown to us demonstrated, by our words, a predisposition towards such violence?

I shall reflect carefully on what an appropriate response to this denigration of our characters should be, and in the meantime pray that you will no longer deem it necessary to direct such slurs at others.

Brian, please understand that, for my part at least, you have nothing to fear. :-)

I trust that Graham will view these matters in the same light.

!!!!!!!

Peter/Portwyne

It all depends on how big Brian is and how many mates he's got.

Cowardice should always take precedence over conviction.

GV

Brian

On reflection, I have on occasion gratuitously mocked you and for that I apologise and in future I will attempt to discipline myself - metaphorically speaking of-course - I will not be employing the cilice just attempting restraint.

Where mockery is deserved, however, no quarter is offered...

Do I detect a trinity of Christians with a guilty conscience?

Depends on how big you are and how many mates you've got.

Brian
Do you really think humiliation is essential to comedy? Ridicule I agree with - but I think it's very important that we all be able to laugh at ourselves.
But did "Yes, Minister" humiliate politicians? It seems a more gentle form of ridicule. Wodehouse didn't engage in humiliation. His comedy stands the test of time. Waugh's satire is a bit more substantive, but hardly cruel.
It's the cruelty that concerns me - the lack of humanity. The sense that the comedian thinks that they are superior to their target, or that the satirists are enjoying their position of power. This seems common place in contemporary comedy.

GV

Graham:

I'm not sure that you haven't got your words arse about face. Ridicule can be defined as 'showing contempt', which is stronger than humiliation, which is humbling or abasement of pride (surely a good 'Christian' tactic?). Actually, I don’t really think there is much difference. I would tend to use the words interchangeably.

Portwyne:

I don't think you pay attention. Both John Wright and myself agree that Ross and Brand were wrong to do what they did. But for someone who indulges in reliigious complexity, you seem to demand simplicity in everything else. If your granddaughter were a member of a burlesque group called the Satanic Sluts and had auditioned for page 3 of the Sun, would you not NEED a fairly robust sense of humour? Sachs should have called back with some abuse of his own and all this moralising would have been avoided. Instead, the Brtitish are portrayed as a nation of unforgiving prudes, along with the Ulster Christians on this blog who have jumped on the outrage bandwagon. These same Christians are not averse to a touch of verbal cruelty to non-believers when it suits them (and, sure, so too are non-believers).

Brian
Keep Webster out of it. My examples illustrated the point adequately. Use "degrading" instead of "humiliating" if you prefer.
There is a general coarsening of public discourse that is worrying. But I'm not outraged by the Brand/Ross broadcast. I'd rather talk about some of the deeper issues.

G Veale

Brian McClinton says:

"Sachs should have called back with some abuse of his own and all this moralising would have been avoided."

Precisely. And Brand would have put the call on the air, because the ultimate aim was comedy, not malice.

Brian, Peter and Graham

I'm afraid I'm an Anglo-Catholic - very definitely not the real thing - so I find it quite impossible to hold on to feelings of contrition for any length of time. So let me apologise to you one in all in the style of Mr Brand.

I said some things I didn't of oughta
incited sum guyz 2 randum slaughta,
stamped on feelinses
lef po' Brian reelinses
so
peter morrow: know my sorrow
graham veale: my remorse feel
as for Brian:
quit yer cryin...

Brian

I believe in complexity of causation and significance - but morality and religion are, in themselves, very very simple. Indeed I believe Jesus said applying anything more than the mindfulness of a little child to the kingdom of heaven was likely to be counter-productive.

This case seems very simple to me - if Brand's own words are to be believed. He said Georgina Baillie asked him not to alert her grandfather to her membership of the 'Satanic Sluts'; it would be quite reasonable to infer from that that she believed telling her grandfather that (or similar things) would upset him. It would appear that she was right and they did upset him. It is no excuse (and displays a callow sensibility) merely to say that they should not have upset him.

Brand and Ross chose wilfully to pursue a course of actions where they ought to have known offence to an elderly man was a likely outcome. I do not think that piling humiliation on an unwilling victim is even remotely funny - I'm sorry but there it is.

John
What I find interesting is that the media seems to want to judge the broadcast by subjective standards - 30000 people complained, case closed.

Whereas you want to defend, and I want to criticise this type of broadcast by objective criteria - freedom of expression, civility, nature/purpose of comedy.

It seems totally inconsistent for the public to condemn Ross and love Sasha Baron-Cohen, or Little Britain.

Maybe it would be more constructive to move away from the details of this particular controversy, and focus on more general questions.

For example, what exactly does this kind of humour achieve? Is it really a good idea to have no boundaries? Won't that become boring after a while? For example, look at what has happened to the horror genre since "The Exorcist". It has become nigh-on impossible to horrify audiences. Violence is increasingly played for laughs. Isn't it possible that comedy will end up in the same rut?

GV

John
Also, the aim is not the only factor to be evaluated. We also need to consider the effects.
In any case, if malice can be reasonably inferred, what difference does the aim make? And why should anyone have to descend into the gutter to respond to a "joke"? Is that the aim of such humour? To put us all in the gutter together? Is that a sensible aim?

There just seem to be many wider and deeper issues that can be missed if we focus on the details of one minor media event.

Portwyne
Please don't do that again.

GV

Graham, Graham, Graham.

Your questions imply that we need to come to answers to these questions as a collective rather than as individuals. That isn't true. You and I view things differently, and a mature society recognises that, appreciates it and honours it. What does the humour achieve? Well, for me one thing, for you another. Won't it become boring? If it does, nobody will listen to it.


"If malice can be reasonably inferred..."

It can't, and that's my point.


"And why should anyone have to descend into the gutter to respond to a "joke"? Is that the aim of such humour? To put us all in the gutter together?"

Where IS the gutter? Is one man's gutter not another man's picnic? I don't think humour involving sex constitutes gutter humour. Clearly you do. Your real error is not acknowledging our rights to differ! Why do you assume we all have (or should have) the same standards?

"To put us all in the gutter together?"

We're NOT in it together. And not being "in it" is as simple as not tuning the dial to a particular frequency and piping the resulting sound through a speaker into your eardrums. :-)

I'm really not sure I can add much to what has already been said, however it may be useful if I comment by way of seeking a bit of clarity.

John

I asked you if you could explain what you thought made abuse via radio different from abuse in the workplace. Your reply was basically that the intent was entertainment. Couple of things. Do you think that this means that if the intent (a hard thing to prove, something you point out yourself in post 61) is entertainment then anything goes as long as there's a big enough audience to keep the show on the road? And while I agree that controversy can be fun, it seems to me that what happened here was that an individual's personal life was, without his knowledge, and without his grand-daughter's permission, broadcast to a pretty wide audience for fun. That is something completely different from the object of the fun being included and joining in the laughter. In my view - not funny.

In other instances this is known a bullying in the workplace, even if the intent is humour, the critical point being whether or not the one being made fun of is included and there is an ability to take as much as one can give. Even then, my view is that we ought to proceed with extreme with care when joking with/about others.

People shouldn't just have to 'take it'.


Brian

Graham has pretty much said what I was thinking about humiliation and comedy, so a different point.

You say, "If your granddaughter were a member of a burlesque group called the Satanic Sluts and had auditioned for page 3 of the Sun, would you not NEED a fairly robust sense of humour?"

Now, I'm not known for my Satanism, (tend to stay in on All Hallows Eve and don't own a pentagram) and I'm not sure the concept of my grand-daughter (or anyone's grand-daughter for that matter) being a member of the Satanic Sluts troop is a thought which fills me with much joy, but em, why would this make her, or her grandfather, an object of ridicule? I mean are racist jokes, for example, out, but Satanist jokes in?

You will note I have tried to stay away from the concept of the morality of 'smut'.



Portwyne

That was way too much repentance. I was joking!!!

Peter Morrow- Are you saying that Andrew Sachs should sue Russell Brand and/or the BBC for some kind of harassment?

John

It would not be for me to give Andrew Sachs advice, but I think if he pushed it he might have a case.

Peter- That tells me all I need to know.

And what, John, was that?

This is beginning to feel like ichat!

Haha! Okay, it tells me that you don't care about the intent or the obvious fact that it was supposed to contribute to the comedy of a radio show; if you can't see the difference between that and workplace harassment I can't help you.

Gee John, you really ought to take up mind reading. You obviously read me sooooooooo...... em..... I'm thinking of a word.........place your hand on the screen.... the word is.........

John
I'm pretty sure that it would be reasonable to infer that the aim of the "joke" was to humiliate Mr Sachs. If it wasn't, why was it funny? Surely this type of humour doesn't appeal to incongruity or escapism. It rather appeals to a sense of superiority.

Obviously public discourse is, well, public. So some sort of collective decision about boundaries might be helpful. We might also agree to times and places when those boundaries can be broken.

"Just change the channel" just assumes that some form of relativism is justified. Now maybe it is, but wouldn't an argument for it be nice? The question isn't should auch a broadcast be censored, but what is such a broadcast worth.

I'm also concerned that breaking boundaries as an end in itself is nihilistic. So I'm trying to understand why it has become so popular - other than it is easy. Or at least easier than creativity.

Of course people have different tastes. But that doesn't make their tastes wise.

In other words there are larger issues here that shouldn't be evaded.

G Veale

Oh, and humour involving sex isn't the gutter. Telling an old man that you have fornicated with his granddaughter just to test his reaction in public is.
Again your response just assumes some sort of relativism without argument.

GV

Graham-

You say:


"I'm pretty sure that it would be reasonable to infer that the aim of the "joke" was to humiliate Mr Sachs. If it wasn't, why was it funny?"

So you're admitting it was funny? I said it wasn't malicious. You're right, it was humiliation, not malice. They didn't mean him HARM. It was 'Funniest Home Videos', not 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre'.


"Surely this type of humour doesn't appeal to incongruity or escapism. It rather appeals to a sense of superiority."

No, it appeals to a sense of cultural norms about young women and sexuality (old-fashioned norms actually) and plays upon the feelings of protectiveness a grandfather might have over his granddaughter, while being made more edgy by the sexual aspect of the joke. There's no superiority needed to make jokes of this sort.


"'Just change the channel' just assumes that some form of relativism is justified. Now maybe it is, but wouldn't an argument for it be nice? The question isn't should auch a broadcast be censored, but what is such a broadcast worth."

What is it worth TO WHOM? And to ask for an argument proving that there is a range of tastes and standards across the human spectrum is asinine: it's obviously the case. Why have any choices in broadcasts at all, given your question? We should all have a single TV channel, cause we all agree on what we prefer watching, according to the premise of your question.


"I'm also concerned that breaking boundaries as an end in itself is nihilistic."

I disagree; I think it can be very useful. Human beings have spent their existence breaking boundaries; it's how we grow and mature and change. And the usefulness of breaking this particular 'boundary' is to challenge the basic assumption that women need so much protection that their grandfathers would be upset to hear a man telling them that they had sexual relations with them. (It's insulting to women. If this were a girl joking about having sex with a man, I doubt there would have been more than 3 complaints, never mind 30,000. Morons.)


"In other words there are larger issues here that shouldn't be evaded."

I completely agree, and have spent all my time on this thread attempting to draw attention to them.

John

Look into my eyes... concentrate... concentrate.... whoooooooo....

The word is...... badly.

Peter- You told me the intent doesn't matter by saying "...even if the intent is humour...." and continuing to make your same point comparing it to workplace bullying. How do I read you badly?

John, I said

..."this is known a bullying in the workplace, even if the intent is humour, the critical point being whether or not the one being made fun of is included and there is and ability to take as much as one can give. The words 'at' and 'with' come to mind. In other words I think that it might be reasonable to pause and ask ourselves if humiliation is always or ever an acceptable form of humour.

And in answer to your question about Sachs suing I said, "It would not be for me to give Andrew Sachs advice, but I think if he pushed it he might have a case." After which you presumed to know what I meant. By this last comment all I was saying was that I imagined that if Sachs did bring a suit then he might stand a chance of being heard. How does that particular response tell you anything about my attitude to intent?

Peter- You're playing around. Would you or would you not support a lawsuit by Sachs on the basis of harassment? In other words, do you believe this is the same thing as bullying in the workplace? I think you made it clear you do. THAT'S what I oppose.

What BBC misses badly is broadcasters like the Late, great, John Peal, Alan Freeman, or Kenny Everret . These two ponses pale into insignificance compared to them (Peal,Everett, and Freeman). Although peel's music was always a bit weird (for my tastes anyway) he was a true proffessional.

I don't find Brand remotely funny and Ross is just irritating. OK, so Everett did overstep the mark a few times. but because he was genuinely funny he always bounced back. I don't know why the BBC ever put these two (Ross and Brand) on public radio.

John

1) What I read of the broadcast didn't seem funny, but maybe you had to be there at the time. Somehow I can't envision the greater number of listeners delighting in the delicious and subtle subversion of modern sexual mores. Is any plausible interpretation of a broadcast rational. If so, can the BBC take what Ross said as a resignation?

2) Again, you retreat into relativism without argument - perhaps without even realising that you are doing so. Of course there are varying tastes - but should they all be catered to? And are they all of equal value?

3) I'm bewildered by your suggestion that choice implies anything goes. I don't like opera, but I can recognise that it can be valuable. I don't watch Cricket, but I can see why it could be a pleasant distraction for some people.
But the "Saw" and "Hostel" movies? "Wolf Creek"? Bernard Manning? Whatever entertainment value they offer is clearly out weighed by the vices they endorse.

4) Now to be clear, I'm not arguing for censorship. I'm just saying some things are not worth broadcasting, and that something has gone wrong if we think that they merit a wide audience. I think we need the courage to make a judgment. If we can refuse to broadcast an act because of it's artistic demerit, why can't we reject an act for it's moral demerits?

5) There clearly is a brand of humour (and a corresponding brand of art) that breaks boundaries simply because the boundaries are there. That's rather different than questioning or critiquing a boundary. I think such nihilism is an empty and worthless undertaking. I'd like to know if you agree, or what the counter-argument is.

6) Assume that some serious comment is intended by a comic or commentator. Let's take a notorious Bill Maher comment -
" But I've often said that if I had ...two retarded children, I'd be a hero. [I have two dogs] And yet the dogs are pretty much the same thing... They're sweet. They're loving. They're kind, but they don't mentally advance at all... Dogs are like retarded children."
Is humour an appropriate medium for that sort of viewpoint? It doesn't advance any sort of argument. There's a vague analogy in Maher's mind, but nothing substantial.
Similarly, take Limbaugh's "critique" of Michael J Fox's defence of Stem Cell Research. How does imitating a person suffering from Parkinson's gain anything except notoriety for the host?
Perhaps both broadcasters had a substantial target in mind. But when you miss a target by this sort of distance, is it safe to let you on the firing range?

6) There is also a brand of humour that revels in it's intellectual/social superiority. Baron-Cohen is a good example- ridiculing public figures is fine, and he can be very funny. What disturbs me is his zealous guard on his own privacy. The joke is on everyone but him.

7) If your bottom line is that market forces should prevail, then isn't there a strong case for sacking Ross?

GV

Graham- I'm glad for your point-form. I'll adopt it.

1) You underestimate radio listeners. They're smart, and understand social mores. But no advanced thought process about societal standards is necessary to understand this joke. A guy telling a guy he slept with his granddaughter is socially provocative enough to be funny (though I found it rather tame and not that funny myself). It's funny precisely because other people will be shocked by it, and it's funny on a deeper level because there are no really good REASONS for being shocked by it. In any case at least I got why the joke was funny as some on this thread appear to have missed and - no - it isn't about bullying.

2) There are varying tastes; that you suggest not all of them should be catered to is the arrogance of someone whose tastes aren't under threat of being extinguished. Can you see what I'm saying about collectivism and individualism and how it's relevant to this?

3) Your suggestion that horror movies like Hostel differ from cricket and opera in terms of acceptability derives from your own personal morals and opinion, from which others dissent. So, again, people have differing standards. Shouldn't the policy simply be: live and let live? You don't like it; they do. What you're doing is called "moralising".

4) You say you're not arguing for censorship. Of course not! Nobody with your views ever argued for censorship! And of course you absolutely ARE arguing for censorship with your very next sentence, which suggests that "we" need to make a judgement about what to broadcast. In case it isn't clear enough for you how that constitutes censorship: it's the majority (you and people who agree) CENSORING the material enjoyed by the minority --- for "moral" reasons --- morals that YOU hold but not the minority you're censoring! That you don't think you're endorsing censorship is hilarious. You, sir, are in denial.

5) You say there is a brand of humour that involves breaking boundaries just because they're there. I agree. I defend it because I think moral boundaries are set at the individual level and therefore breaking those set by 'society' to the exclusion of the individuals that don't hold them is a useful and educational thing. It also happens to be funny to think (and to see) the reactions of those who are shocked by it, and 'funny' is, after all, the point of humour, is it not?

6) The Bill Maher comment about retards is outrageous for the sake of it. You ask if humour is an appropriate medium for that sentiment. I think humour is an appropriate medium for all human sentiments. He's simply trying to be provocative: to provoke feelings about which the people who feel them may reflect, entertaining many of them who do. You'll respond to such a comment in one of a few ways. You may be shocked and think about why what he said is shameful. You may be shocked and think about why you were shocked, and work out there's no good reason for it (I'm convinced there's this potential for much of what we find shocking). You may be shocked and amused at the same time, and laugh from the conflict about it (this effect can be seen in much stand-up comedy scenarios). You may not be shocked, and laugh instantly at the reaction of the people you know will be (I fall into this category much of the time). Usually the comedy works either way. It's clear that comments in this vein TRY to make people think about the feelings they have and why they have them: I think that's a useful thing.

7) I don't see how it follows that market forces mean there's a good case for firing Jonathan Ross. Doesn't he get ratings? If he does, they might want to keep him. If he doesn't, they might want to fire him. If he has lost popular appeal, by all means fire him, but let's not pretend that by doing so the views of the 30,000 geriatrics who complained about this show are somehow vindicated in their selective 'outrage'.

John

I am absolutely not playing around. You have tried to turn my comments into a question of whether or not I 'support a lawsuit by Sachs', and that has nothing to do with having an opinion on the events of this story.

The key point in my earlier comments, now repeated twice, is, "this is known as bullying in the workplace, even if the intent is humour, the critical point being (note the emphasis) whether or not the one being made fun of is included and there is an ability to take as much as one can give. The words 'at' and 'with' come to mind. In other words I think that it might be reasonable to pause and ask ourselves if humiliation is always or ever an acceptable form of humour."

I am trying (poorly obviously) to suggest that we might seek to determine the difference between humour and harassment in terms of whether or not the object of the humour is included or excluded. Now, I'm not trying to make a legal case, and I may be way off target in terms of a legal definition, but I am giving you my opinion about how we might make a judgement about humour, humiliation, ridicule, harassment and what is and what is not acceptable on the basis of how the humour is (1) received and (2) the effects it has on a particular person or set of circumstances. In this context then I suggested that Mr Sachs, if he took a case, might be given a hearing and it would then be for a jury and judge to make a judgement on the matter.

This fits with my earlier comment about broadcasting standards. If, and it seems to me quite possible that humour might have negative consequences on a person, then it might be a good idea for those responsible for the content of a broadcast to stop and think about any possible results of the content of their programme. And frankly, 'switch over' or 'turn off' as a defense is just lazy and not particularly creatively demanding.

Your only response to date on the matter of harassment has been something to do with the 'intent' being comedy. My point is simple, in saying that you are making a judgement, and where others (usually the recipient) see it differently it might have to be settled in court.

That is why we have courts.

Peter- I'm sorry if I haven't been understanding your point exactly.

With regard to intent, you say I'm making a judgement that the intent was comedy. I'd say there's no other possible judgement to make about an on-air segment of a comedy show, than that the intention of the segment was comedy. Otherwise, why do it on-air? If this were done as an in-office prank, the intent may be more ambiguous. Not in the case of a comedy show. Involving the courts in a prank call is obviously asinine and sensible courts would throw it out immediately.

You say:

...humour might have negative consequences on a person..."

Aside from the 30,000 complaints and the attention they've caused - in other words, taking the phonecall itself in isolation - what do you think are the negative consequences for Sachs of Brand's phonecalls?

(I should clarify: "Involving the courts in a comedy show prank call on the basis that it may constitute something more malicious than comedy is asinine.")

Let's just be clear. The BBC say what Ross and Brand did was wrong. The controller of Radio 2 admits it was wrong and resigned. The DG of the BBC says it was wrong. Sachs and his granddaughter say what they did was wrong. And guess who else says what they did was wrong?

Ross and Brand *themselves* say they were in the wrong. Everyone who was actually *involved* in this sorry saga says what they did was WRONG. The only people trying to say it wasn't wrong are the self-appointed 'guardians of free speech'.

Complainers are criticised for sticking their noses in when they didn't even hear the broadcast - well those of you who support Ross and Brand weren't even involved - those that were involved all say one thing: it was wrong.

Just to address john-wright - you say that while the licence fee doesn't affect you you oppose it on principle. That's fine. It may help you understand why people complained about Ross and Brand - because they felt it was 'wrong in principle' also.

John - your 'live and let live' policy is naive. We are all part of society and sub-societies and sub groups- in which there are rules, shared patterns and standards of behaviour. All of us are under pressure, from subtle or overt ways, to conform.

No man is an island.

And I feel very few people would want to be totally isolated. What anti-collectivists fail to realise (I'm talking to you Ayn Rand) is that people often want to be part of groups, part of something larger than themselves.

This can lead to good or evil.

There should be room for dissenting voices but ultimately, one majority opinion has to hold sway otherwise it's anarchy. Ultimately, someone has to say 'this opinion is better than that opinion' - or 'this way of behaving is superior to that way' - we do have a code of behaviour we all have to follow -on pain of imprisonment (or in America, death) - the law.

If we can know that the majority found Ross and Brand's comments acceptable, then fine.

The tyranny of the majority? Perhaps, but it's better than all the other tyrannies.

"And the usefulness of breaking this particular 'boundary' is to challenge the basic assumption that women need so much protection that their grandfathers would be upset to hear a man telling them that they had sexual relations with them."

John - what about the breaking of privacy?

Yes I know he agreed to an interview - in which case what about the granddaughter's privacy?

Yes I know she is in a burlesque group - but she didn't ask to be involved in the show, or have her relations with Brand broadcast, and Sachs did not want the material to go out over the air. She has since gone to the tabloids - but her privacy at the time was invaded, and let's say she was as pure as the driven snow and hadn't been anywhere near a burlesque group- this would not be an argument you could use.

Bloofs- Your screenname and triple postings aside, you seem like a reasonable person. Surely you understand that I'm speaking somewhat hypothetically here in response to a number of the arguments made against what Brand and Ross did. In other words, some of the arguments used against them are wrong, and I'm attacking the arguments and underlying issues rather than the specifics of this case itself. If you check above, I ALSO said what they did was wrong. That isn't among the issues I'm dealing with in this thread.

You go on to engage with some of those issues in #84 with your "no man is an island" stuff. If you think I'm saying we need to be "isolated" you're wrong. I agree we're part of groups. That's why these issues come up in the first place, because we're part of a society. But we engage in society as INDIVIDUALS, who think and who come to conclusions about what is right and wrong at the individual level. (Even when we are persuaded by others, we give final assent at the individual level.)


"Ultimately, one majority opinion has to hold sway otherwise it's anarchy."

What does this mean, Bloofs? If a minority think masturbation is okay and the majority think it's sinful, should the majority make it illegal? Or, rather, do they simply not engage in it themselves while allowing other people to conduct themselves based on their own sense of right and wrong?

My opinion on this is simple. If someone is not infringing on the rights of someone else, they should be free to do what they like.

That means you switch off your own radio, not attempt to force the material off the air or exact consequences for those who may have enjoyed it.

"We need to build a society that is happy to live and let live, rather than twitch at the curtains as the neighbours come and go."

-And those nosy neighbours saved your life when they spotted those robbers coming in through the back window. Those nosy neighbours stopped your house burning down when they saw a fire starting upstairs.

In other words, if we are to have a truly individualistic society - we will have to accept the consequences: which is often selfishness and isolation, and cruelty.

If we want a society which has cohesiveness we may have to practice self restraint sometimes, in thought, word and deed.

No, say the individualists, I want my right to do and say as I please.

Well, yes you can have that, but there will be consequences. We are seeing those consequences now, crime rates, elderly people dying alone, mental health problems.

Do we look for what unites (and binds us) or do we jettison this for individualism?

Individuals will suffer in strong communities. But individuals will also suffer without cohesive communities.

I think what the 30,000 complaints may be an indication of, is the cry of those who feel these sorts of broadcasts are a part of the 'no-society' flow of culture, when a lot of people *want* a society.

And society has rules which you can't really break.

Damn the rules and damn society I expect many to say- well, it looks like that's what's happening, maybe by a majority who are convinced we don't need rules anymore.

But we will all live to regret it.

To be honest this is all getting a bit overly serious over a stupid phone call - but the thread of the conversation on this blog seems to be heading that way so I'm going with the flow.

"But we engage in society as INDIVIDUALS, who think and who come to conclusions about what is right and wrong at the individual level"

-This is incorrect.
Society moulds the individual first and inculcates what is right and wrong.

When we are born we have no concept of right or wrong as an individual.

As for my triple posts - sadly I can't edit after the fact - blame the BBC.

My username is a random word - it means nothing and is not meant to imply anything - I am sick of coming up with usernames so I just use nonsense words now.


"My opinion on this is simple. If someone is not infringing on the rights of someone else, they should be free to do what they like."

-Well at the least Ross and Brand were infringing privacy but I think we're moving on from that into a more general area of free speech now.

Does Ross have the right to say to Sachs in the street 'I s*****d your granddaughter' - yes although it makes him an unpleasant person.
He doesn't necessarily have the right to broadcast it on radio.

Besides, your reference to onanism is an interesting point - the majority may find it a sin but they wouldn't necessarily legislate against it. But there are patterns and codes of behaviour which we slot into to help society function - you can break these without fear of prosecution, but you will face social exclusion, anger etc and that's what has happened to Ross and Brand.

You are demanding the removal of such social pressure, shame etc.

But these things exist for a reason, some can be removed without damaging the fabric of society, but not all can be.

"Onanism"? That tells me a lot, Bloofs. And they wouldn't "necessarily" legislate against it. Good to know. As for the rest of what you said, I can only tell you that when I interact with society I do so fully and without reservation - I'm a sociable person AND and individualist - and there's no conflict whatsoever. Any apocalypse you see on the horizon of a future where we respect the rights of people to conduct themselves according to their own consciences and ambitions is an apocalypse of your own imagination and not of any reality I'm aware of.

*Double posting warning*

By the way, I find it wholly ironic that I'm defending the act of performing comedy to the listening ears of a mass audience to a guy who is accusing me of being an isolationist!

John

You think there is no other possible judgement to make other than it was comedy - OK - that's your judgement call. All I'm saying is that if there is an alternative point of view, and I'm saying that that is a possibility, then those writing the show ought to consider the implications of what they say and do.

Using the defense 'it was comedy' isn't a catch all in my view.

Where's the problem here?

As to negative consequences, maybe he and his grand-daughter had a row, maybe he and his daughter/son had a row, maybe they're not speaking, maybe he's getting abuse from the neighbours, maybe it will be recalled in the wider media at a later stage, maybe someone won't allow him to forget. I don't know, but what I do know is that all of our actions have consequences, and 'I didn't mean it' is a playground excuse. Maybe I've just heard it too often.

And I didn't say we should involve the courts, I said that if someone chose to then they would probably get a hearing, and a judgement would be made about the intent of the presenters and probably the implications of there actions.

And 'why do it on air'. Possibly to make a name for one's self, to get heard, noticed, cos they're egotists, cos they like the sound of their own voice, to get a better contract, to be a mean bollix, I don't know but I'd guess there are more possibilities than just creativity.

BTW it wasn't creative.

And you haven't addressed my point about including and excluding people.

John
1) My tastes are not catered for by the media. I don't have a TV licence or have a TV arial. I find the greater part of the British Television inaccurate, thoughtless, offensive and inane.

But I quite like "House". And the BBC costume dramas aren't bad. And I do miss "Match of the Day"

2) No, I'm not in denial about censorship. I don't want legislation that would have made any of the broadcasts we are discussing illegal. But the mass media can only broadcast a finite number of acts. They have to make choices. I don't want the law to make those choices, but I do think it's right to censure the media when their choices are foolish.

3) Am I moralising? Maybe. But I can't see why moral worth shouldn't be one criteria for deciding what to broadcast. We certainly feel free to reject work that lacks artistic merit. Why keep morality out of the discussion?
There is also a legitimate concern about the effect of torture porn. The Ken Bigley beheading has been passed from mobile phone to mobile phone in my school. One student offered to show me the beheading as "cool". His classmates and he could not even understand why I was horrified at the idea.
They found the beheading tame compared to movies on offer. These were not feral children. They're from good families. They study hard. They've good futures. And yet the torture and death of an innocent man meant absolutely nothing to them. Nothing at all. They knew it was real, they thought it was cool.
Other delights have included photographs from the autopsy of a baby. Again, on the phone of a well-mannered, intelligent young woman. Again, she could not even understand why someone would be upset that these pictures were being stored for entertainment value.
There's no rationalising this away. I discussed the beheading over several periods with the students involved. I have a good relationship with these students. They were not confronting their existential angst, or researching politics. They just thought the video was entertaining (a little less bloody and brutal than they expected, so a little disappointing. They've developed stomachs for this sort of thing).
What we accept as entertainment will have wider consequences. And if it is moralising to be worried, then I'm moralising.

4) Again, I will raise the concern that there are a limited number of boundaries to break. Once they're gone what's comedy left with? I think the big problem with nihilism is that it is boring.

5) But where I do agree with you is that the point of comedy is to be funny. Sometimes the laughs aren't worth the coarseness in my view. But I don't think that comedy needs any moral merit. The whole point of entertainment is just to be entertained. To enjoy life just because we can.
This is why Christian entertainment is so awful. It puts morality ahead of enjoyment. If you want to do that, preach a sermon or write a hymn. But stay off TV.

GV

Bloofs may have had to use multiple posts as the system won't accept a long post at times.

GV

John

I note you say you are defending a general principle and wish to move from the specifics of this case.

You appear to cite 'good intention' as a defence against criticism of Ross and Brand: as long as the aim is entertainment, not malice, the action is OK.

How would you apply this principle to the case of the death of Michael Lush on the 'Late Late (but unlamented) Breakfast Show'. The aim there was I am sure completely without malice - does that relieve the producers of responsibility for ensuring the heath and safety of participants in the show? Maybe you would argue that a person's emotional health and well-being are of less importance than his physical health?

Peter- If you can provide alternative explanations other than the intent of comedy for Brand getting behind a mic and joking on Sachs' answerphone, lets hear it! (Perhaps he wanted to add to his electricity bill, thus causing him financial hardship, putting him into bankruptcy, causing him stress, giving him a heart attack, killing him and ultimately marrying his satanic daughter in hopes of gaining from his estate. If that's true, you're right to suggest the courts would be very interested.)


Graham- Your idea that television must make 'choices' and they should make better ones assumes two things: firstly that the finite bandwidth held by broadcasters is too small to cater to everyone's tastes, and secondly that some of those tastes are "more equal than others.' Both are erroneous: there is ample space on television, internet, media in general to cater to everyone, and everyone's tastes are equally valid so long as they don't involve harming others. Careful how far you push this point: there's a convergence taking place between TV, internet and other digital media that threaten to make you sound like a neanderthal and make all of these points redundant anyway. ;-) In the end, freedom wins.


Portwyne- No, I don't intend to defend every health or safety decision in every TV show, possible TV show or circus, past, present and future, and I'm not sure Michael Lush is in the least bit relevant to this radio bit unless you're alleging that Brand was performing a 'daring feat' involving Sachs like Evel Knievel.

Bloofs:

Frankly, I haven't a clue what most of this argument is about. Nobody has said that it was right for Ross and Brand to do what they did. Hence, Bloofs, you are wrong in saying that the only people trying to say it wasn't wrong are the self-appointed guardians of free speech.

We also seem to agree that the attention given to the incident is completely OTT. This excessive coverage includes the BBC itself, which led its main TV bulletins for nearly a week with the story. Why does the media have to feed off itself so much? This is my main objection to the whole episode.

Why, therefore, don't you complain about the self-appointed guardians of public morality who are falling over themselves in trying to outdo one another in righteous ire?

I agree with John: the BBC is a vast organisation which caters for all sorts of tastes. If you didn't like Russell Brand you didn't have to listen to him. You could have turned to Radio 4 or BBC 2 instead.

Personally, I can't stand Jonathan Ross because he comes across as too smug by half and because he overdoses on smut, but I wouldn't let my personal taste affect my judgment. I watch his film programme because I am interested in films and because he 'sobers up' for it.

There ARE more important things to get angry about.

John, post-modernist though I am, I am really not sure that you can have your cake and eat it in this instance. Are you talking about the Brand incident or are you talking about general principles, as implied in your post # 86 ("I'm attacking the arguments and underlying issues rather than the specifics of this case itself")?

If you are addressing the issues, a direct link of Edmonds/Lush to Brand/Sachs is completely irrelevant to my argument.

You proposed lack of malicious intention as a factor not so much mitigating as eliminating blame for the causing of actual harm.

I suggest that intention is irrelevant - that we have a moral (and in many cases legal) responsibility to ensure that we do not wilfully or negligently act in such a way as may bring harm to others.

I suggest emotional harm is the equal of physical harm.

I suggest broadcasting or other media involvement confers no exception to the general principles we apply in the workplace or everyday life.

Brian
I pretty much agree with your assessment of Ross. I still think the wider issues merit some discussion.

Although, in the long run market forces will win the day.

GV

Portwyne-


"If you are addressing the issues, a direct link of Edmonds/Lush to Brand/Sachs is completely irrelevant to my argument."

That was my point. Another commenter compared the two and I said they were wrong to do so.

John/Portwyne

I think intention has to come into the assessment of an acts morality at some level. Contemporary utilitarians generally acknowledge this, and attempt to make room for such assessments.
However intentions may not be the best measure to use when assessing public policy. It's this type of humour that I'm questioning. What are it's effects? Are they good or bad?


As an aside - John has made some intelligent points in defence of this *type* of joke (everyone has agreed that this *instance* of the *type* was a mistake). And I'm finding his comments very helpful. I have to teach a module on the Media, and I find it very difficult to empathise with this sort of comedy. So it has been difficult for me to see the case for it(being a Born Agin Christian etc.)
This sort of discussion helps me represent another point of view in class, and hopefully I can do it more justice.
So cheers and thanks to John and Brian et al. for taking the time to disagree, and I hope we can keep disagreeing on this issue. I'm finding it very helpful.

GV