![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Because he has nothing better to do - it's not as if we're in an economic crisis and the pound is at an historic low against the Euro or anything, after all - our Beloved Leader has joined in the chorus of moralising hysteria directed at Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand. Because politicians love to knock the BBC for being so terribly mean to them, and all the rest of the media loves to knock the BBC because it's better than them, and worst of all the BBC loves to knock the BBC because like everything else that is good and noble in our culture, it is currently beset with a crippling overdose of self-doubt and consequent belief in the virtue of self-flagellation. And so one of the few institutions of which Britain can still be rightly proud takes another hit as the jackals circle. I mean, have any of these shrill nonentities actually read the damn transcript? (NB: many purported transcripts available are woefully incomplete. The Times, for instance, with all the fidelity to truth one expects from a Murdoch rag, omits the 'Satanic Slvts' (NSFW, obviously) line - either because they were too stupid to understand it, or because it would militate against the impression of slurred innocence they're trying to summon re: Sachs' granddaughter. Not that I have the slightest thing against burlesque performers, you understand - but treating a suggestion that one such might have done the sex with a man in a manner befitting similar suggestions levelled regarding a small child or Victorian princess does seem rather bizarre).
Consider:
- Andrew Sachs cancelled on them. He was not a random victim. It is acceptable to leave voicemail for someone who belatedly cancelled on you in a tone which might be considered poor form on other voicemails.
- Andrew Sachs is only famous because he was happy to play the whipping boy in Fawlty Towers; he can hardly start standing on dignity now. Cf Stephen Fry on fame, specifically the differences between his own and Nicholas Lyndhurst's.
- And this one is the clincher: IT WAS FUNNY. Even without the voices of Ross and Brand, reading a bad transcript that's supplied for purposes of damning them rather than making me laugh, even overwhelmed with anger at the absurd storm around it all, I was cracking up. They made a comedy show; they engaged in nothing more dangerous than the use of harsh language (and even that was not as harsh as the coverage would have you think); they made people laugh. They offended some other people, for sure, but as we should all know by now, offended people are the very worst people on the planet.
As far as I'm concerned, Ross and Brand are both due a pat on the back if not a raise, and everyone who has objected can piss off to somewhere with a suitably deferential press for their tender sensibilities - Saudi, say, North Korea, or Iran.
Consider:
- Andrew Sachs cancelled on them. He was not a random victim. It is acceptable to leave voicemail for someone who belatedly cancelled on you in a tone which might be considered poor form on other voicemails.
- Andrew Sachs is only famous because he was happy to play the whipping boy in Fawlty Towers; he can hardly start standing on dignity now. Cf Stephen Fry on fame, specifically the differences between his own and Nicholas Lyndhurst's.
- And this one is the clincher: IT WAS FUNNY. Even without the voices of Ross and Brand, reading a bad transcript that's supplied for purposes of damning them rather than making me laugh, even overwhelmed with anger at the absurd storm around it all, I was cracking up. They made a comedy show; they engaged in nothing more dangerous than the use of harsh language (and even that was not as harsh as the coverage would have you think); they made people laugh. They offended some other people, for sure, but as we should all know by now, offended people are the very worst people on the planet.
As far as I'm concerned, Ross and Brand are both due a pat on the back if not a raise, and everyone who has objected can piss off to somewhere with a suitably deferential press for their tender sensibilities - Saudi, say, North Korea, or Iran.
As a wise man once wrote
Date: 2008-10-28 10:04 pm (UTC)Re: cor
Date: 2008-10-28 10:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-28 10:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-28 10:20 pm (UTC)"he was asking for it"
because it's ok to broadcast personal abuse if someone doesn't keep to an agreed date
"it's ok to talk about sex acts with the granddaughter because she's a satanic slut and therefore not an innocent"
did wycliff jean teach you nothing?
oh wait let me guess, she was asking for it too
personally I reckon whoever is responsible for broadcasting that pre-taped thing without censor deserves bad things to happen to their career....
no subject
Date: 2008-10-28 10:33 pm (UTC)"if you are a 'bully' who chooses their target based on percieved past wrong on their part, you are much better than a program like balls of steel where randoms get 'bullied'"
is that seriously the best you can do to justify it....
posing in scantaly cad outfits = acceptable to insult the lady's honor - really really only a few steps away from the whole she-was-asking-for-it which is a bad bad thing and anyone who uses thaty argument is not someone who has a leg tostand on morally
no subject
Date: 2008-10-28 10:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-28 10:37 pm (UTC)Re: cor
Date: 2008-10-28 10:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-28 10:41 pm (UTC)Re: cor
Date: 2008-10-28 10:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-28 10:44 pm (UTC)claim a morally wrong position and then when someone disagrees with you and gives you actual reasons why you arguments about one ting being acceptable and another not being acceptable are illigical and just downright wrong, you just hint at your own personal insults rather than stick the discussion you chose to start.
Until I write a letter to your mum talking about how her son gets thrills from ******** on ******, I don't see how either of our behavoirs are related to the issue
no subject
Date: 2008-10-28 10:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-28 10:51 pm (UTC)It's a horrible thing to talk about someone else's sex life a) publicly and b) to their unsuspecting relatives. It's particularly vile when neither party is around to respond in person. If the people you're discussing aren't in on the joke then it's not a joke, it's malicious.
What I was most surprised by was that it had been pre-recorded and signed off for broadcast. Either the editor thought that was both funny and perfectly acceptable behaviour, or they thought they'd let it out to see how quickly the attention gathered. Neither option gives me much confidence in this mystery 'senior executive' that keeps being mentioned.
All that said, I'm already bored of the witch hunt too. An apology is the most you can ask for, they've given it, everyone please shush now.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-28 10:53 pm (UTC)again you're avoiding the point though, you're *really* good at that I seem to remember
no subject
Date: 2008-10-28 10:58 pm (UTC)oh wait I rememebr she was a fettish performer and therefore asking for it
*tisk*
If I stood up a girl on a date with no warning, it wouldn't be acceptable for her to involve my family in the insults she would no doubt post on the internet
in short my opinion on the matter (because you're good at avoiding my arguments):
* the messages they left go far beyond what is acceptable if someone stands you up on a broadcasted show
* saying a person deserves to have aspersions cast against their morals because they've had photos taken of them in provocative poses is VERY VERY wrong and you should honestly be ahamed of yourself for saying that
no subject
Date: 2008-10-28 10:58 pm (UTC)Frankly, if either of my parents were asked to appear on a radio show you were hosting, I would not be surprised if something along those lines were said. Which is precisely why, in the profoundly unlikely circumstances of that situation arising, I would advise them against accepting such an invite in the first place.
Re: cor
Date: 2008-10-28 11:00 pm (UTC)I don't like watching happy slapping
do you see the difference?
no subject
Date: 2008-10-28 11:03 pm (UTC)Supposing that their agent was completely honest with him, of course. And even if he was fully briefed, I imagine he was expecting smut that he'd be able to respond to; Jonathan Ross may be a bit bawdy but he's light entertainment personified (and do many 78 year olds know who Russell Brand even is?)
They're both professional radio hosts, I'm sure there have been plenty of other instances where a guest hasn't answered or appeared on time and they've changed tack accordingly. Why launch straight into the vulgar stuff on his answering machine? (Speaking of which, has there been any mention of why he didn't answer the phone yet?)
no subject
Date: 2008-10-28 11:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-28 11:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-28 11:10 pm (UTC)Dan no shows
It would not be acceptable for Barry to punch Dan outside the boxing ring even though Dan agreed to the match and no-showed
The two points from my first reply in this thread still stand:
* "bullies" being nasty to someone because they belive the deserve it, is not much different to "bullies" being nasty to a random for entertainment - i.e. the difference between this and balls of steel is not much
* making comments which besmersh a lady's honour is not accptable just because the lady has done fetish modelling
no subject
Date: 2008-10-28 11:10 pm (UTC)And my point was precisely that no 'aspersions' have been cast. To talk in terms of 'aspersions' is to subscribe to terribly Victorian ideas that saying a lady has had extramarital sex is de facto an insult. I thought we were beyond that. If he'd gone into details of various scandalous and specific acts, then yes, you might have a case to answer. He didn't. He just said they'd had sex. In 2008, is that still scandalous? Really?
Now which arguments am I avoiding, exactly?
no subject
Date: 2008-10-28 11:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-28 11:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-28 11:19 pm (UTC)