ThisisBigBrother.com - UK TV Forums

ThisisBigBrother.com - UK TV Forums (https://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/index.php)
-   TV Chat (https://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   The BBC fills our living rooms with more smutty and degrading obscenities (https://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74216)

Red Moon 31-10-2008 08:17 AM

The BBC fills our living rooms with more smutty and degrading obscenities
 
Told you so..... the Daily Mail is cleaning up TV and do you know what there is nothing we can do about. Reporting the Daily Mail to their equivalent of Ofcom won't get you anywhere what they are doing is acceptable within the code of practice.

Quote:

The BBC fills our living rooms with more smutty and degrading obscenities
The abusive messages left by Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross on Andrew Sachs's answer phone and the Mock The Week 'joke' about the Queen was far from the only offensive material on the BBC recently.

Both prerecorded and live shows across its channels had repeated references to smutty and degrading subjects.

Here the Daily Mail prints some recent extracts.

We apologise to readers who may be offended.

The Graham Norton Show, BBC2, October 23, 10pm. Repeated Sunday

Norton asked his guests Thandie Newton and Ricky Gervais to read a pretend film script in which Sarah Palin - America's Republican candidate for vice president - is made out to be a porn star.

Norton (reading the part of narrator): Sarah unbuttons her blouse.

Newton (reading the part of Sarah Palin): Why don't you feast your eyes on Mama's jugs?

Norton: She lifts her skirt and starts rubbing herself.

Newton: It's time to drill baby. Drill hard and deep. Come on you tree-hugging hippy. What are you waiting for? Congressional approval?

Norton: The business partner wakes up and unzips his pants. Sarah licks her lips and grabs his p***s.

That Mitchell And Webb Look, BBC4, Tuesday, 9pm

The second in a series of short comic sketches in the comedy shows a group of characters pretending to rehearse for a Christmas pantomime in a village hall. The scene starts with a young blonde woman 'raping' the panto Dame using a sex toy.

Dame: Oh nooooo. Oh nooooo, stop it.

Messenger: Guys, guys, listen up. It's bad news. I've just been talking to the parish council and they strongly feel we should drop the Dame rape from this year's panto. 'Rapist': But it's traditional.

Dame: It's everybody's favourite bit.

Director: What? What next? I suppose they are going to tell us that we can't have Cinderella s***ing off the panto horse.

Messenger: Well, they did voice some concerns.

The Chris Moyles Show, BBC Radio One, yesterday, 9.20am

A young couple have been on a date organised by the breakfast show team. Moyles and his co-presenters are discussing the date and quizzing the couple about whether they liked each other. Moyles says to girl, who admits she doesn't see the boy as boyfriend material, 'couldn't you at least have done it with him once, a sympathy one, anything.'

During this sketch show set in a parallel universe, a girl called Sue is abducted by aliens.

The Wrong Door: Smutty Aliens, BBC3, September 11, 10.30pm

Alien 1: Behold! The fastest ship in the whole world. The hyperian w*** sock.

Sue: It looks like a giant *******. [Two Aliens and Sue board a space ship in the shape of the male genitalia.]

Alien 2: Engaging the lesbolian ******* drive. [The alien makes sexually suggestive movements with his hand.] The dialogue becomes even more crude and explicit in the subsequent exchanges.

Love Soup, BBC1, April, 9.20pm

The 'comedy' portrayed an extremely violent and realistic suicide of a woman leaping from a ten-storey building and smashing into the concrete pavement.

It transpired that the woman had left behind a dog which was then adopted by Milly - played by Montserrat Lombard.

Viewers were then treated to a scene of this young woman, kneeling naked in the bathroom to retrieve a contact lens, apparently being raped by the dog. Viewers were shown the labrador passing the bathroom door and then a pair of dog paws on the woman's naked shoulders in the scene lasting seconds.

Viewers learned that the suicide victim had been having sex with her dog for many years - and the animal had effectively been trained to target a kneeling woman. Laughing about the incident around a canteen table, one of the characters quips: 'There is love and attention - and [there is] being rogered by a dog'.
Source:Daily Mail

Annie 31-10-2008 09:07 AM

Too far AGAIN :bored:

Tom4784 31-10-2008 09:27 AM

Daily Mail = Tw*ts

Jackie 31-10-2008 09:32 AM

It's all around us nowadays smutty remarks and degrading obsecenties.

Loukas 31-10-2008 09:34 AM

OMFG!!! Way to far now FFS. BBC are going to potato's! :bored:

Ruth 31-10-2008 09:38 AM

The Daily Mail has appointed itself the role of television police. I keep saying this but it's true - there are too many people who are happy to let the Mail dictate to them what they should be angry about, what minorities they should be frightened of today, and what their political affiliation should be.

It's really quite scary. The BBC need to grow a pair and not give into this media bullying. Let people choose what they want to watch. We all know where the off button is if something offends us. Sadly we are living in an age where if you don't complain, your opinion doesn't count.:sad:

Personally I find it offensive the way the Mail attacks any woman who dares to put on a pound in weight, who dares to go out without full make up on. I find it offensive the way they attack people's relationships, and create witch hunts on anyone they deem to be 'wrong' (doesn't matter what they are wrong about). Give me an hour of Russell Brand at his most offensive, than Richard Littlejohn, any day.

Mrluvaluva 31-10-2008 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ruth

The Daily Mail has appointed itself the role of television police. I keep saying this but it's true - there are too many people who are happy to let the Mail dictate to them what they should be angry about, what minorities they should be frightened of today, and what their political affiliation should be.

It's really quite scary. The BBC need to grow a pair and not give into this media bullying. Let people choose what they want to watch. We all know where the off button is if something offends us. Sadly we are living in an age where if you don't complain, your opinion doesn't count.:sad:

Personally I find it offensive the way the Mail attacks any woman who dares to put on a pound in weight, who dares to go out without full make up on. I find it offensive the way they attack people's relationships, and create witch hunts on anyone they deem to be 'wrong' (doesn't matter what they are wrong about). Give me an hour of Russell Brand at his most offensive, than Richard Littlejohn, any day.
Well said. I totally agree with that. I think they are blowing this way out of proportion. "Wonders what is going to be said about Ponderland last night".

lookintomyeyes 31-10-2008 09:53 AM

I guess more programmes will have to be shown past the watershed if the daily mail get their way.

Red Moon 31-10-2008 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mrluvaluva
"Wonders what is going to be said about Ponderland last night".
Nothing, that was shown on Channel 4, which they haven't worked out is actually publicly funded in part.

Quote:

Originally posted by lookintomyeyes
I guess more programmes will have to be shown past the watershed if the daily mail get their way.
That's not what they want, they want the stuff shown past the watershed sanitized too, the are having a campaign to rid the BBC of anything smutty or controversial.

lookintomyeyes 31-10-2008 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Red Moon
Quote:

Originally posted by lookintomyeyes
I guess more programmes will have to be shown past the watershed if the daily mail get their way.
That's not what they want, they want the stuff shown past the watershed sanitized too, the are having a campaign to rid the BBC of anything smutty or controversial.
Why target just the BBC? surely the daily mail doesn't have that much power to influence the BBC into reducing these so called obsceneties, it all sounds rather ridiculous to me, a storm in a teacup brought up just cause of this brand/ross affair.

lookintomyeyes 31-10-2008 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ruth
Personally I find it offensive the way the Mail attacks any woman who dares to put on a pound in weight, who dares to go out without full make up on.
Can you find me a link to where the mail has chosen to target makeup and women putting on the pounds. i don't read the daily mail you see and this sounds rather interesting and in fact rather offending.

I'd question their motives for doing such a thing and i'm sure many of their readers would also.

Red Moon 31-10-2008 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lookintomyeyes
Why target just the BBC? surely the daily mail doesn't have that much power to influence the BBC into reducing these so called obsceneties, it all sounds rather ridiculous to me, a storm in a teacup brought up just cause of this brand/ross affair.
They target the BBC because it is funded by public money and they, as the voice of middle England, are speaking for the people that don't want smut on the TV. They think the BBC should be more accountable, more tightly controlled and effectively sanitized of anything even remotely controversial.

The press in the UK as whole has too much power to influence the people and this is an example of it exercising that power. Clearly the Daily Mail really does think it can do something about it or they wouldn't have published the article above.

When this whole Ross/Brand affair started the BBC and Ofcom had just a few complaints until the Sunday papers published the story together with the email and snail mail address of Ofcom, then the number of complaints rocketed.

Now would that have happened if the papers hadn't have got involved in such a upfront way? I think not.

The Daily Mail is out to get the BBC and going by Richard Littlejohn's column they would ultimately like it privatized. He see's it as eating away at the commercial TV sector and at the paper media too:

Quote:

Richard Littlejohn talking about the BBC:
Now, an expansion into local news threatens to sound the death knell for regional weekly and evening newspapers, already struggling to maintain circulation and classified advertising in the digital age.
The fact the BBC has had regional news and programming for years, seems to have passed him by. And not content with that, he has a go at the BBC website:

Quote:

Richard Littlejohn talking about the BBC:
I could go on to include the BBC's hugely-expensive internet operation. Who voted for that?
The Daily mail is out to get the BBC in whatever it can and the people that read it are ready to listen and the stupid politicians are ready to jump on the bandwagon like they did about the Ross/Brand affair.

The Richard Littlejohn article is in this thread:

http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/foru...php?tid=101607

Red Moon 31-10-2008 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lookintomyeyes
Quote:

Originally posted by Ruth
Personally I find it offensive the way the Mail attacks any woman who dares to put on a pound in weight, who dares to go out without full make up on.
Can you find me a link to where the mail has chosen to target makeup and women putting on the pounds. i don't read the daily mail you see and this sounds rather interesting and in fact rather offending.

I'd question their motives for doing such a thing and i'm sure many of their readers would also.
Here is one about someone putting on weight:

A holiday swim reveals Jennifer Love Hewitt has piled on the pounds

They have loads of stories like this about people in the public eye like this one from yesterdays paper:

If you thought Kate Moss looked bad getting ON the plane, you should see her getting OFF

James 31-10-2008 11:14 AM

To be honest this debacle is a bit of an argument against the way the BBC is funded. All these serial-complainers think they have the right to complain about things they never watch or listen to because they pay the TV License.

If the BBC was independent it could get away with more and wouldn't have to bow to tabloid pressure so much. I'm disappointed in them for that.

lookintomyeyes 31-10-2008 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Red Moon
Quote:

Originally posted by lookintomyeyes
Quote:

Originally posted by Ruth
Personally I find it offensive the way the Mail attacks any woman who dares to put on a pound in weight, who dares to go out without full make up on.
Can you find me a link to where the mail has chosen to target makeup and women putting on the pounds. i don't read the daily mail you see and this sounds rather interesting and in fact rather offending.

I'd question their motives for doing such a thing and i'm sure many of their readers would also.
Here is one about someone putting on weight:

A holiday swim reveals Jennifer Love Hewitt has piled on the pounds

They have loads of stories like this about people in the public eye like this one from yesterdays paper:

If you thought Kate Moss looked bad getting ON the plane, you should see her getting OFF
Thankyou for finding those links red moon, they were interesting to say the least, but in all fairness i've read articles like this in most newspapers and gossip mags. i can't find myself agreeing that the daily mail has chosen to target overweight women and bad makeup just on their own, they simply follow suit to what the other newspapers and mags fall guilty to. posh spice victoria beckham, jordan katie price and madonna receive just as much critisism for looking tacky at times. i have to agree "not being a fan as such"

Red Moon 31-10-2008 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lookintomyeyes
Thankyou for finding those links red moon, they were interesting to say the least, but in all fairness i've read articles like this in most newspapers and gossip mags. i can't find myself agreeing that the daily mail has chosen to target overweight women and bad makeup just on their own, they simply follow suit to what the other newspapers and mags fall guilty to. posh spice victoria beckham, jordan katie price and madonna receive just as much critisism for looking tacky at times. i have to agree "not being a fan as such"
No problem.

It's interesting that they are in effect doing the same as the BBC, the making the private lives of these people public, just in the same way as Ross and Brand did it on the Radio.

I'm sure if Brand had gone to "The News of the World" and sold his story about bedding Andrew Sachs granddaughter then they would happily of published the story especially given what she does as a living and the availability of video (until recently) and images of her on the net.

Okay, it doesn't make it right that Ross and Brand did what they did, but it does put it in perspective.

lookintomyeyes 31-10-2008 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Red Moon
Quote:

Originally posted by lookintomyeyes
Why target just the BBC? surely the daily mail doesn't have that much power to influence the BBC into reducing these so called obsceneties, it all sounds rather ridiculous to me, a storm in a teacup brought up just cause of this brand/ross affair.
They target the BBC because it is funded by public money and they, as the voice of middle England, are speaking for the people that don't want smut on the TV. They think the BBC should be more accountable, more tightly controlled and effectively sanitized of anything even remotely controversial.

The press in the UK as whole has too much power to influence the people and this is an example of it exercising that power. Clearly the Daily Mail really does think it can do something about it or they wouldn't have published the article above.

The Daily Mail is out to get the BBC and going by Richard Littlejohn's column they would ultimately like it privatized. He see's it as eating away at the commercial TV sector and at the paper media too:

Quote:

Richard Littlejohn talking about the BBC:
Now, an expansion into local news threatens to sound the death knell for regional weekly and evening newspapers, already struggling to maintain circulation and classified advertising in the digital age.
The fact the BBC has had regional news and programming for years, seems to have passed him by. And not content with that, he has a go at the BBC website:

Quote:

Richard Littlejohn talking about the BBC:
I could go on to include the BBC's hugely-expensive internet operation. Who voted for that?
The Daily mail is out to get the BBC in whatever it can and the people that read it are ready to listen and the stupid politicians are ready to jump on the bandwagon like they did about the Ross/Brand affair.

The Richard Littlejohn article is in this thread:

http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/foru...php?tid=101607
I had a read of that article and it seems rather over the top imo, a certain newspaper making a big song and dance over nothing. mary whitehouse "here we come again" and i thought her death would be the very end of all of that nonsense. the daily mail seem to want her style of tv coverage to be the norm for the forseable future which is silly imo, as we have a fair watershed in place to protect children from being offended.

I still think it is silly to target the BBC for broadcasting a few offensive minutes or seconds from 4 or 5 programmes which have received complaints. ITV and channel 4/5 should be mentioned to. from what you point out, the daily mail have other reasons for targeting the BBC, wishing for privatisation, bringing in the tv license into their argument, among other things. i personally like having BBC without adverts, but i also hate paying the tv license and given the choice between adverts and paying out that annual bill, i'd opt for adverts instead. i think many would agree especially with the credit crunch which has been forced upon us.

Quote:

When this whole Ross/Brand affair started the BBC and Ofcom had just a few complaints until the Sunday papers published the story together with the email and snail mail address of Ofcom, then the number of complaints rocketed.

Now would that have happened if the papers hadn't have got involved in such a upfront way? I think not.
I understand what you mean, the more media coverage a story receives, the more complaints follow. of course the daily mail are aware of this and if they have other motives "which you have pointed out" then they do their worst, successfully.

James 31-10-2008 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Red Moon
Here is one about someone putting on weight:

A holiday swim reveals Jennifer Love Hewitt has piled on the pounds

They have loads of stories like this about people in the public eye like this one from yesterdays paper:

If you thought Kate Moss looked bad getting ON the plane, you should see her getting OFF
A lot of this (and Brand/Ross) can be partially explained by plain old envy also. I think there is part of all of us that likes to see successful people get taken down a peg or two.

Red Moon 31-10-2008 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lookintomyeyes
I understand what you mean, the more media coverage a story receives, the more complaints follow. of course the daily mail are aware of this and if they have other motives "which you have pointed out" then they do their worst, successfully.
I also find it interesting how they use people and then turn on them. Here is what they are saying about Georgina Baillie today in the paper:

Quote:

Sordid details emerge about Brand girl's racy secret life
After the belated apologies, resignations and pay cuts the dust is finally beginning to settle on the controversial 'prank calls' by Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand.

Burlesque dancer Georgina Baillie has said she is 'happy' that the comics have been punished for their 'humiliating' treatment of her grandfather Andrew Sachs.

As the woman at the centre of the scandal, 23-year-old Baillie gained overnight notoriety due to her relationship with Brand.

Now further details have emerged of the sordid past which surely would have attracted Brand to her in the first place.

It has been revealed that the brunette advertises herself as Mistress Voluptua - a dominatrix who charges clients £110 an hour for the dubious pleasures of being treated as her 'slave'.

On a myspace page she declares: 'Greetings unworthy creature, welcome to my dominion. Worship me in a fully equipped dungeon.'

In an interview with the Daily Mirror one of Baillie's clients told how he was whipped and spanked by her during sessions at her London flat.

Referring to the 'humiliation' she said Brand's actions caused her, he commented: 'It's unbelievable when you consider that she earns money by dressing as Mistress Voluptua and humiliating me as her sex slave.'

In her interviews since the scandal broke Baillie - who dances under the stage name Voluptua in burlesque troupe The Satanic Sluts - has been keen to stress the upset caused to her and her family by the prank calls.

'Russell Brand has embarrassed me by making a private relationship very public in the cruellest way imaginable,' she said.

'He has betrayed me for a few cheap laughs and left my grandfather distraught.

'What happened between us was supposed to be private but he is clearly no gentleman.'

Her client described how during his first session with Baillie he tidied her messy room, putting her underwear and stockings away.

On another occasion he said Baillie wore a spiked dog collar. This can also be seen in photos of the dancer taken during a private shoot in 2006.

In one of the newly released shots she is dressed in a PVC bondage-style body suit with buckles and chains. She is restrained by a male model who holds the dog collar while staring menacingly in her eyes.

In another the red lipped, heavily made up Baillie lies on her back while the blonde model has his fists at her throat.

A third shot sees her kneeling at his feet as she suggestively pulls his belt undone with her black nailed fingers. And yet another sees the man take the submissive role as the scantily clad Baille holds him by the a dog collar round his neck.
Source:Daily Mail

Funny thing is I could have predicted all that yesterday when I was looking around the net. Good thing for her they didn't find the "Slut House" videos on YouTube.

Mrluvaluva 31-10-2008 12:02 PM

It's also interesting to see Georgina giving interviews and hearing that sales of Fawlty Towers have significantly increased. :wink:

Red Moon 31-10-2008 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mrluvaluva
It's also interesting to see Georgina giving interviews and hearing that sales of Fawlty Towers have significantly increased. :wink:
I know the SUN had a little interview video the Mail reported on, and today they have her doing a sexy photo shot video.

Now there is no smut in the press is there... all those journalists are squeaky clean.:wink:

lookintomyeyes 31-10-2008 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Red Moon
Quote:

Originally posted by lookintomyeyes
Thankyou for finding those links red moon, they were interesting to say the least, but in all fairness i've read articles like this in most newspapers and gossip mags. i can't find myself agreeing that the daily mail has chosen to target overweight women and bad makeup just on their own, they simply follow suit to what the other newspapers and mags fall guilty to. posh spice victoria beckham, jordan katie price and madonna receive just as much critisism for looking tacky at times. i have to agree "not being a fan as such"
No problem.

It's interesting that they are in effect doing the same as the BBC, the making the private lives of these people public, just in the same way as Ross and Brand did it on the Radio.

I'm sure if Brand had gone to "The News of the World" and sold his story about bedding Andrew Sachs granddaughter then they would happily of published the story especially given what she does as a living and the availability of video (until recently) and images of her on the net.

Okay, it doesn't make it right that Ross and Brand did what they did, but it does put it in perspective.
I know newspapers and mags get sued on occasion, many times settling out of court. maybe they weigh up the risks before printing such articles and smearing celebrities is what they do best. the better the story the more papers they sell. if the money coming in is more than the costs of a law suit settlement, then it is worth the risks probably.

I understand your analysis of comparing brand/ross against the news of the world and other such newspapers, but they just get away with it because they always have. maybe the government is too afraid to go up against them?

Red Moon 31-10-2008 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lookintomyeyes
maybe the government is too afraid to go up against them?
I think they are, the press has too much influence on the public in general and is not afraid to use it to get what they want, and that is where started :thumbs:

Right I'm out hunting for lunch and dinner.

Red Moon 31-10-2008 11:28 PM

More from the Mail....

Quote:

Age of infantilism: Why the BBC has been too scared to pull the plug on Jonathan Ross's 'edgy comedy'
As the great man himself wrote: 'It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.'

In a week when the BBC should have been celebrating the success of its superb new Charles Dickens adaptation, two artful dodgers played one cruel trick too many.

As a direct result, the talented controller of Radio 2 has resigned, the case for the licence fee is once more under scrutiny and Jonathan Ross's career is hanging by his Little Dorrit.

The BBC's most expensive star of all time is suspended for 12 weeks without pay, a saving so significant that the BBC could afford to launch a one-man mission to Mars. How about sending Russell Brand?

Despite all of the above, Jonathan Ross will be missed by millions of viewers and listeners.

I used to be a fan of Ross's Friday night BBC One chat show. At least, I was a fan of the man who, at his best, combined shrewd critical appreciation with a twinkly mischief that could make a winter night seem less dark.

What I will not miss is the Mid-Life Crisis Ross.

The one who has been acting like an increasingly desperate, leery uncle at a wedding hoping to get off with the chief bridesmaid. Lately, no female guest has been safe from his creepy advances.

He told Nigella Lawson that she was a Milf (Mum I'd like to *******).

A formal complaint was made about that programme, but the BBC's editorial standards committee cleared Ross of breaching standards.

Of course they did. However low Ross went, the standards bar was adjusted accordingly to suit the BBC's favoured son.

A bewildered, icily polite Gwyneth Paltrow, who had just survived the rigours of natural childbirth, had to put up with Ross asking if she planned to have sex again soon.

The paunchy host eagerly volunteered himself.

'If you want to have sex I'll phone my wife. If she gave me permission, I would ******* you, yes.

'Because you're so nice and, really, you're gagging for it.'

If Jonathan Ross tried that on the street, it would be called sexual harassment.

BBC senior managers should have awoken from their complacent slumber when Ross's mate and Hampstead neighbour, Russell Brand, appeared on the show back in April.

The pair joked about Brand having sex with Ross's young daughter and his pets. Ross told Brand he looked like a *******.

There were gasps from the audience, but the two overgrown lads continued their merry sexist banter - safe in the knowledge that their 'edgy comedy', or filth as it used to be called, would be indulged by a BBC which seemed to regard Ross and Brand as boisterous, lovable puppies.

Oh dear, they will have the occasional little accident on the carpet, won't they?

Well, now the pampered pups have had the poop accident from hell. And the stain on the corporation's reputation could take months, if not years, to get out.

Larking about on a Radio 2 show, Ross and Brand played a repulsive prank on Andrew Sachs, the veteran star of Fawlty Towers.

Picture the scene. The 78-year-old actor gets home after walking the dog to find four messages on his answerphone.

In the first message, a sniggering Ross eggs Brand on to more innuendo and bellows across the studio: 'He ********* your granddaughter!'

Brand rang back to apologise, but added insult to injury by naming Georgina Baillie, Sachs's granddaughter, who is an exotic dancer.

Next came the cringemaking confession that Brand had used a condom and - sensitive readers please look away now - Ross and Brand suggested breaking into Sachs's house to perform a sex act on him.

Thank God Lord Reith, the founding father of public service broadcasting, is in his grave, for that last detail would surely have killed him.

Was it all a publicity stunt for Ross's autobiography, titled with horrible prescience, Why Do I Say These Things? If it was, it backfired spectacularly.

In the past, the pair had always got away with lewd jokes among their peer group.

But this was an old man being forced to hear excruciating details about his granddaughter's sex life.

Two top BBC stars were using a national radio station to embarrass and humiliate a person who deserved only affection and respect. And we were picking up the bill.

As a child, Andrew Sachs and his family fled as Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany.

Seventy years later, Andrew was being persecuted again, this time by arrogant prats who considered he was fair game because of his granddaughter's racy lifestyle.

So far, so juvenile and depressing. But was that really enough to account for the media storm that blew up?

Only two complaints were received after the original broadcast. Yet by yesterday that had risen to more than 30,000.

A typhoon of public indignation blasted the bird's nest-haired Brand off his perch.
Lesley Douglas, the controller who rescued Radio 2 from the nursing home and made it the most popular station in Britain, had resigned to protect junior staff.

The BBC, meanwhile, had been criticised by the Prime Minister, the leader of the Opposition and Janet Street-Porter.

Blimey. When Janet, the architect of witless Yoof TV, says she thinks that TV standards have fallen dangerously low, then we really do need to start worrying.

So is the row just 'synthetic anger' whipped up by the BBC's 'usual critics', as the editor of Radio 1's Newsbeat claimed?

Or does it reflect public anger at a deeper cultural malaise? Not just two foolish and decadent broadcasters, but a decadent and foolish system that didn't even try to stop them.

The global financial meltdown, which Ross and Brand managed to bump from the front pages, undoubtedly played a part in their downfall.

Even when the good times were rolling, Jonathan Ross's £18 million for a three-year deal was enough to make City slickers choke on their Bollinger.

Now the Age of Excess has well and truly hit the buffers. People feel disgusted and afraid. And who should pipe up at this precise moment but Mr 16-grand-a-day Ross.

Was he using that public money to uphold the highest standards of the BBC?

No, he joined wits - if it can be dignified as such - with his mate Russell in an orgy of self-congratulation to humiliate a performer who had played a key part in one of the monuments of British comedy.

Fawlty Towers was also about embarrassment and humiliation and shame. But John Cleese and Connie Booth famously worked on each script for months until they were word-perfect.

The comedy they produced will stand the test of time: Fawlty Towers and the blissfully clueless Manuel ('Que?') will last for as long as there are humans who need to laugh.

The contrast with Ross and Brand's disposable, stream-of-unconsciousness smut could not be more painful.

For someone who costs so much, Jonathan Ross can be horribly cheap.

At the British Comedy Awards last December, a cockily unrepentant Ross quipped: 'I'm worth a thousand BBC journalists.'

The newsroom at TV Centre was then facing the loss of 2,500 jobs.

Such monumental tactlessness could not long go unpunished. With Britain in recession, Ross's obscene annual £6 million salary can no longer be tolerated.

Not when it could pay for a whole series of the glorious Cranford, or when the BBC's acclaimed Natural History Unit has had its budget slashed by a third.

While bankers were taking more and more outrageous risks with our money, and being lavishly rewarded for that recklessness, so were performers like Brand and Ross.

Don't we all feel a bit stupid that we let them get away with it for so long?

Another key factor here is the BBC's obsession with youth.

I have lost count of the producers in their 40s and 50s who have told me they are looking for another career.

A friend who tried to get a series made on a family subject found herself pitching the idea to 29-year-old commissioning editors who were invariably single, childless and often gay.

Nothing wrong with that per se. But those individuals hardly reflect the views of the majority who actually watch the box every night.

Can you blame the public for being furious with Brand-Ross when their motto seems to be: 'We make the programmes we like, you mugs pay for them.'

One gifted BBC producer, who resigned recently, emailed me: 'Television is not for you these days if you can't self-shoot and self-edit in an incredibly short time with no budget and if you aren't 12 years old.

'Sorry if I sound ageist, but they are bloody ageist.'

Nic Philps, the producer of that notorious Russell Brand show, is 25 years old. Barely out of nappies, Mr Philps was unlikely to have been able to control potty-mouthed giant egos like Ross and Brand.

Quite frankly, I wonder whether he would even have been bothered by what Director-General Mark Thompson called 'a gross lapse of taste'.

In the recording of Ross and Brand leaving their cruel messages for Sachs, you can actually hear the studio staff cracking up as the jokes go too far, and then go much further.

An older, wiser head would have chucked a bucket of cold water over the filthy pair.

But these days at the BBC an older, wiser producer is likely to have been forced into early retirement.

Barry Cryer, the well-loved veteran comic and a close friend of Sachs, says that the panellists on Radio 4's I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue always larked about and pushed the limits during the recording of the show.

Their experienced producer would then say: 'That worked in the mood of the moment, but it's not suitable for broadcast. I'm cutting it out.'

Would that such a person had had his firm hands on the reins of the prancing elf Russell Brand.

If you let a kid run the show is it any surprise when it deteriorates into playground bullying?

Perhaps the most worrying thing about this debacle was the way this scandal highlighted a frightening divide between the generations.

There are those of us who were upset by the sheer unkindness of Andrew Sachs's tormentors and even more staggered by the subsequent decision by highly-rewarded executives to broadcast the show.

Interviewed for their thoughts on the whole affair, the youngsters queuing to see a recording of BBC Two's laddish Never Mind The Buzzcocks didn't see the problem.

They told a reporter that they thought the Ross-Brand tape was absolutely hilarious. Like Nic Philps, those viewers belong to the MySpace and blogging generation.

They have been raised on a culture of unedited speech where you can say any damned thing you like and no one will cut it. So was Georgina Baillie, Mr Sachs's granddaughter.

On MySpace, the 23-year-old lists her marital status as 'Swinger' and says: 'I like to party, I don't care if you call me a waster or even a "groupie" because I'm having more fun than you and living this way makes me happy.'

This is what Noel Gallagher calls the 'Them and Us' divide.

A friend of Brand's, the Oasis star told Radio Ulster: 'At worst, it was a juvenile prank that wasn't unfunny - but it's hardly offensive.'

Compare that with this solemn rebuke from the Archbishop of Canterbury: 'I'm astonished that any editor gave the go-ahead to this disgusting and pathetic infantilism.

'Have we really got to this point of humiliation as entertainment? Why do we reward so colossally this toxic immaturity?'

The answer, Archbishop, is that the BBC rewards it because it thinks it pays.

And it is scared stiff of upsetting Brand and Ross, the most popular boys in the playground.

It's the reason why, when Jonathan Ross asked David Cameron if had ever 'had a w***' over a poster of Margaret Thatcher, the Tory leader didn't slap him down, but bore that disgusting question with an embarrassed smile.

Politicians are scared of seeming stuffy and out of touch. So are broadcasters.

That's why the humiliation of Andrew Sachs was allowed onto the airwaves.

No one wanted to be the spoilsport grown-up who said: 'Sorry, boys. It isn't clever and it isn't funny.'

Holed up in his Hampstead study with his collection of vintage comics, Jonathan Ross will have plenty of time to reflect on how one of the most entertaining broadcasters of his generation came to immature into a dirty old man making nuisance calls to a great comic actor.

It's not too late for Ross to grow up, but he shouldn't expect a call to replace Terry Wogan on the breakfast show any time soon.

Thirty years ago, Private Eye lampooned the BBC's motto, Nation Shall Speak Unto Nation, altering it to 'Moron Shall Speak Unto Moron'.

Over the coming months, the BBC is going to have to work hard to convince the people who give it £3 billion a year that they are no longer going to fund a culture of blokeish coarseness that degrades the ideal of public service broadcasting.

The puppies need to be toilet trained. The age of the over-sexed, overpaid moron should be declared over.

As someone who treasures the BBC and the great contribution it can make to the life of our country, I hope it turns out to be on the side of Us not Them.
Source: Daily Mail


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:04 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.