Rumbling on
The headlines today are, well, challenging for the Beeb:
- My grandfather is distraught…now sack these sickos, says the Sun
- Brown turns up heat on Ross, at the Mail
- Brown demands action from BBC over lewd stars, says the Telegraph
- Clamour grows for BBC to act over radio insults, says the Times
And that’s just those that lead with it on their front page.
Much of the ire is, understandably, being directed at Ross and Brand, but for my money Iain Dale has it right here, where he points out that since it was pre-recorded much of the responsibility must lie with producer, editor and station controller. Sky also have a good interview with former DJ Roger Gale, arguing against making a scapegoat of out of a junior staff member. As he puts it, It’s the people at the top that set the trend, not those low down the food chain.
This Guardian piece also has some interesting background that helps explain why this could be be good news for those that want to see reform at the Beeb:
Unfortunately for the BBC’s director general, Mark Thompson, the furore has coincided with the endgame in a debate about the future of public service broadcasting post-2012. Ofcom will deliver its conclusions in January.
Critics said the BBC’s slow response and the confusing reviews now in motion showed the weakness of its regulatory system, which was overhauled after the Hutton inquiry, and its compliance regime, supposed to have been tightened after last year’s fakery rows and phone-in scandals.
Who knows, it could even lead to suggestions that the BBC actually monitor compliance with other charter commitments, such as to impartiality.
UPDATE: Brand and Ross have been suspended – and after three days the Beeb has managed to find Mark Thompson. The number of complaints has now topped 18,000. Even the Guardian’s Michael White suggests the Beeb tends to be a little slow to admit its mistakes.
UPDATE 2: Brand has quit.
UPDATE 3: Sorry, but just one final thought on this: the Beeb are making much of the fact that Radio 1 listeners don’t see what the fuss is about – it’s a generational thing, innit – the logic being that if enough people think it’s funny then it’s okay to ring up someone to inform them that you’ve f***ed their granddaughter. And then broadcast the results against their wishes. I think I understand the principle the Beeb is trying to develop, but I’m a little unsure of how it’s meant to be applied: is it only former cast members of Fawlty Towers we can do it with, or any license fee payer? And is it just granddaughters, or are they allowed to ring me to inform me that one of their staff members has f****ed by daughter – provided, of course, that the youth audience chortle?
john b:
I got your phone number, cheers for that mate. Now all I need is a time you are guaranteed NOT to be there when your answer machine is on, as comic genius only works when the person abuse is aimed at is not there to defend themselves.
Incidentally, could you also explain to me why so many lefties are utterly obsessed with their own recycled opinions to such an the extent that they all set up web blogs.
Your own is yet another example of how lefties use the internet to showboat their politics, as if what they are saying is mildly interesting or remotely interesting.
Yours fails on both counts.
http://www.johnband.org/blog/
John B.
I don’t believe you’re actually giving your phone number out. If you are, forward it to germin_files@hotmail.com.
I’m going to try and call at 4am John, just to make it that bit more humorous to you.
s/”lefties”/”opinionated dickheads of all political hues”. You should get one, it’d do you good.
Gareth – certainly, neither the 1988 or 1997 laws apply: the messages in context are clearly not with the intention of causing distress (despite tabloid lies – again, read the transcript); not harassment (3 calls over 15 mins, the first of which is solicited, isn’t harassment); and not incitement of violence. On the Telecoms Act 1984, the calls aren’t false (Brand did sleep with Baillie).
It’s not quite so inconceivable that they’d fall under 43a (the ‘a’ in your link), which is “grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character”. However, given legal precedent for ‘grossly offensive’ and ‘indecent’, it’s still bloody unlikely.
@ John B –
Despite you not sending me your phone number, I received it from the other guy you sent it to…which means you must in fact have been dishing it out.
For me that’s proof that you’re seriously DERANGED.
Really. You actually invite people to call you up and make abusive phone calls to you or anyone else living at your house? You want that?
John B,
The Malicious Communications Act 1988 describes offences being “indecent, offensive or threatening … with the intention of causing distress or anxiety to those receiving them”
It is the nature of Ross’s and Brand’s sense of humour to aim to make people uncomfortable. The messages clearly worked as Sachs did complain via his agent.
The Protection From Harassment Act 1997 provides sufficient scope for any action done more than once to constitute harassment. They left more than one message.