I try to resist posting about acts of inexcusable stupidity and venality these days, BUT...

[alexsarll]

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.

Comments

As a wise man once wrote

[barrysarll.livejournal.com]

"If there's one thing worse than an alcoholic, it's a recovering alcoholic, because there's not even the hope that he might pass out."

Re: cor

[barrysarll.livejournal.com]

They *have* both apologised! And yet mystifyingly, the case isn't closed...

[my-name-is-anna.livejournal.com]

Ugh but I hate their smug faces though, especially Jonathan Ross.

[p-dan-tic.livejournal.com]

quotes are me paraphraising you

"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....

[p-dan-tic.livejournal.com]

again what you seem to be saying

"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

[barrysarll.livejournal.com]

Yes Daniel, because we all know how you would never dream of slighting someone's honour or throwing around accusations about their sexual conduct.

[barrysarll.livejournal.com]

If every smug face in the land were to be the subject of this sort of outrage, the news sites would short-circuit.

Re: cor

[p-dan-tic.livejournal.com]

your definition of decent comedy leaves a lot to be desired

[barrysarll.livejournal.com]

It's not like he pulled out of an appearance on Today and was suddenly getting hassle for it. The minute he, or his agent, or whoever, agreed to be on with Ross and/or Brand, he was in for smut. To then be outraged over getting smut is as absurd as going on an eighties kids TV show and then suing because you get gunged or custard-pied. If he'd said 'no thank you' in the first place, he would have had no problems from them. And no publicity either, of course.

Re: cor

[barrysarll.livejournal.com]

So, all those Bender quotes you love - they're all nice, are they?

[p-dan-tic.livejournal.com]

oh good one

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

[barrysarll.livejournal.com]

Except that your original quibble made no mention of the comment-made-to-relative aspect of the situation, so if that was the entirety of your moral leg to stand on, you really should have clarified your ground a little better in the first place.

[baphomette.livejournal.com]

I didn't find it funny in transcript, nor having heard it since (maybe that order influences me somewhat, I don't know).

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.

[p-dan-tic.livejournal.com]

two threads, two arguments against two specific comments, each in their resective place - i thought that was the correct way to behave in el jay comments

again you're avoiding the point though, you're *really* good at that I seem to remember

[p-dan-tic.livejournal.com]

and what exactly did his granddaughter do to deserve her being talked about on national radio what many people think of as a degrading fashion

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

[barrysarll.livejournal.com]

No, Daniel - I am arguing in this thread about what you have said higher up in this thread. You did not initially raise the issue of family in this thread. And TBH when you did in the other thread, I didn't have the faintest idea what you were on about, having only a very limited familiarity with the solo careers of the Fugees.

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

[p-dan-tic.livejournal.com]

yeah and i like watching men getting beaten half to death in a wrestling ring - sometimes the action isn't "nice"

I don't like watching happy slapping

do you see the difference?

[baphomette.livejournal.com]

The minute he, or his agent, or whoever, agreed to be on with Ross and/or Brand, he was in for smut

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?)

[baphomette.livejournal.com]

(I broke the HTML, sorry!)

[miss-newham.livejournal.com]

I agree with you Barry! Oh well.

[p-dan-tic.livejournal.com]

Dan vs Barry has been booked as a boxing match.
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

[barrysarll.livejournal.com]

Now, I know that it's not definite whether she did or not, but anyone who has slept with Russell Brand in the past couple of years, ie since knowing that his schtick consists mainly of talking about all the muckiness he gets up to - well, you basically just signed a release form to be part of his act, didn't you? Sure as if you sleep with Leonard Cohen, there's likely to be a song about it by year's end.

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?

[barrysarll.livejournal.com]

If you're a has-been comic who's accepting invites to shows you don't understand, you're not due any sympathy. He must at least have been compos mentis enough during the Emu years to have learned that much.

[barrysarll.livejournal.com]

Blimey. I suppose someone had to!

[barrysarll.livejournal.com]

I am a little surprised that it got through on pre-record, but in a world where Chris Morris can't get his suicide bomb-com commissioned for fear of Causing Offence, that's more pleasantly surprised than anything else. I hate how scared the media has got these past few years.