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

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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

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

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?

Do you agree that it's not acceptable to involve someone's family in a personal disagreement?

If you seek out someone's relatives specifically to drag them in, that's not on. If you're already in contact with them for other reasons, then it depends on the circumstances, but is certainly not blanket unacceptable in the same way.

That's a very wooly answer but it is an answer to one of the things I've been accusing you of avoiding - bloody took long enough though

You say 'woolly', I say 'nuanced'. Few questions have totally black-and-white answers; even in my loathing for censorship I am obliged to admit that it has occasional uses in terms of eg wartime operational necessity.

You inferred that my love of bender quotes was somewhat akin to someone finding those answer phone messages funny. Do you see there is a difference?

Implied rather than inferred, surely? Yes, there are many differences, but at the core of my comment is the paramount importance of rejecting any strictures which would suggest that comedy must be 'nice', for the moment you accept such rules you kiss goodbye to your comedy culture. You and

ksta are both welcome to object to these voicemails, but you'll have to choose better ground than 'not nice' - and in fairness, you have already done so.

so what was the point of the bender analogy?

Bender actually pickpockting a real person wouldn't be funny... If this was a terrible sit-com where 2 bbbc personalities left an abusive voicemail then I wouldn't care

Again, then, we reach a simple disagreement; if I saw Bender pickpocketing a real person I didn't like, perhaps one who was stood on the left of an escalator, I'd be laughing.

Do you agree that a person has the right to revoke their concent at any time, or do you belive that once you've agreed to something that you can't change you mind?

I believe in cooling off periods. If Manuel had given early notice of cancellation, then fair enough - and I very much doubt that he would have been bothered further. But there comes a point where you're on the ride. Otherwise you can get scared halfway down on a bungee jump, yell 'I WITHDRAW MY CONSENT!' and then start whining about the emotional distress.

But again if I agree to meet a lady and buy her dinner, and then I stand her up, while acting less than gentlemanly, it would not be acceptable for someone to force me into buying her dinner

No, but it would be entirely acceptable to clown you over the issue, and lest we forget, clowning is all that has actually occurred here.

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

no subject

no subject

Question One

Re: Question One

Re: Question One

Re: Question One

Question Two

Re: Question Two

Re: Question Two

Re: Question Two

Question Three

Re: Question Three

Re: Question Three

Re: Question Three