..
So, foul mouthed 40’s something egomaniac adolescent and glittering star within the BBC firmament Jonathan Ross is due to return to our screens, a truly chastened figure! Erm well not!
The Mail reports that “Despite the fuss he caused, provoking an unprecedented 42,000 complaints following his obscene and distasteful ‘prank’ call with Russell Brand to Andrew Sachs, Ross has a simple attitude to the furore – which is that people need to ‘get over it’.” It appears that no extra measures are being put in place to prevent the creation of further offence. ‘The code of compliance is just as it was before,’ confirms a Radio 2 spokesman. And, astonishingly, the BBC claims it has had no extra meetings with the star during which taste and standards were discussed. There will be no extra supervisors in the studios looking over his shoulder and the chain of command will remain just as it was before all the fuss. Even the question of what Ross might say at the Baftas – which will go out before the 9pm watershed – is being regarded with studied nonchalance.
Is anyone surprised? The BBC showed a lamentable lack of understanding of the offence that Wossy caused in the first instance and has made this compounded this ever since by demonstrating a revolting combination of arrogance and contempt for the license-payer.
At the risk of going over the same ground again, I just comment on the figure of 42000. It doubtless represents very many more. I wonder how many other people, like me, phoned the BBC complaints line repeatedly, but always found the ‘line engaged’.
I think it’s his salary we find offensive rather than his banter. On commercial channels it’s the advertisers and the mug punters who buy their products who pay, whilst with Beeb its all of us, directly.
If Wossy was on national minimum wage or state pension like many License Fee payers…
I’ll add a coupla cents and be a football to kick I guess, I’ll have to say I don’t give a shit about this. It was a crass unfunny episode, but as someone who basically likes Ross, but thought he was losing it, and needed to get a reset button pushed, that’s fine. ‘cos the beeb didnt know how to do it directly, because they are not a proper responsibility accrediting organisation..
In their rarefied atmosphere of privilege, he is a revenue earning original talent, but he is worryingly not mainstream, whilst being one of the few things that the Beeb needs to keep their rating creds, however I think they found a welcome distraction from this When this issue arose that helped them give him a justification for a public slap. He had to take it for now, we will see how it develops.
Clarkson is another revenue earner for the BBC, and I can see how he wants to feed his family and cars by this taxpayer sponsorship, the Beeb have it sown up, I remember Clarksons quote that went something like:
“The BBC see themselves as a big fluffy pure white sheep, and ‘Top Gear’ is a big dingelberry hanging off the back, they hate they need us”
when these two get a kick the rest in the BBC squeal and giggle, they reel the rope in and let it out again.
I agree free market telly is the answer. But revelling in the blasphemic trials of Ross, is playing into the hand of the BBC strangle hold on the talent market in our country I think.
The BBC have been up in arms over the Manchester City thing.
We have a choice though. If you don’t like footballers getting large salaries don’t go to football matches or pay for Sky sports
With the BBC and their overpaid presenters we have er ……
The BBC are the arbiters of what is right and wrong, they are mostly beyond reproach. The same message will continue from its septic controller.
If I controlled the BBC it would be biased,of that, I am 100% certain.
It is impossible for anyone to see, hear, feel, smell or taste an experience in exactly the same way as anyone else.
It is possible to see a pint as half full or half empty in every situation.
Has anyone seen the film Network?
@boderick
“Has anyone seen the film Network?”
I like the reactionary nihilism too;)
http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=mad+as+hell&hl=en&emb=0&aq=-1&oq=#
Responding to my complaint, the Director-General of the BBC, Mark Thompson, invited me to lunch. He is a thoughtful, well-educated man. I suggested to him that the television licence fee was the modern equivalent of the tithes which people used to have to pay to the Church of England: even if you did not believe in Anglicanism, or even in God, you still had by law to enrich the Church because your “betters” considered it good for the nation. For the same reason as the tithes went, I argued, so should the licence fee.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/charlesmoore/4272268/Jonathan-Ross-epitomises-our-societys-declining-standards.html
“get over it” That is the BBC attitude. They see Ross gate as something that has been magnified out of all proportion by the fascist Daily Mail. In essence they have, despite a short period of panic and hand wringing, never believed that there was any legitimacy in the complaints received and indeed said so often. After all it was WASP middle England complaining and, of course, they have no right to be heard – just like the tens of thousands who didn’t like Jerry Springer – The Opera..
On the other hand I have seen the BBC perform the most extraordinary contortions of logic to sympathise with people ‘offended’ to hysteria by a Teddy Bear called Mohammud. (remember the demise of the radio adaptation of “Greenmantle” on the grounds that it was nasty about the Turks)
That being said, I agree with Andrew South London – it is the salary that really angers me. Why should I have to pay £18m for someone who steals ideas from Roger Mellie of Viz comic? (including the notorious “up-the-a*se” sequence of his televised endoscopy)
I am sure that his media and ‘biz’ friends will give him a soft landing. The though of his smug, smirking face glorying in his return is rather more than I can bear. I will check this blog for reactions but I will never watch him again.
I had the misfortune of seeing his brother on some godawful cookery show – ‘Celebrity Come Round To My Place And Eat This Shite What I Cooked’ or something – the other day. He’s a gobby, self-regarding tit too. It must be hereditary; the Annoying Wanker gene (identified and named after Rod Hull) must run in the Ross family.
Please, by all means, get rid of Ross. Why? Because he isn’t funny. It’s great, we can scarifice him to the right as a lamb to shut up the Daily Mail’s moral panic and we could get some one like bill bailey or marcus brigstock in his place….it would be great!!!!!! Okay, i am guessing i’m the only one who is feeling that idea….
Radio 2 hasn’t been the same without him. Welcome back Jonathan.
Robert
re the heredity nature of being an irritating ‘wosser….
I used to listen to the BBC London Breakfast show on my commute to work until he was shoe horned it. he is a long winded pompous self regarding bore who is unable to shut up and resents letting any of the other ‘talent’ have air time. he is a genuine talentless bore: not just boring in what he says (interminably) but also conceited and smug. Very like his brother in all aspects.
It must be hereditary.
I think most people are missing the point about Woss and the bbc.
Woss has a terrible reputation (and many enemies) of running to his top lawyers over almost everthing (so now you know where some of his money goes).
I suspect his lawyers also drew up his contract and it is fairly watertight.
The bbc is not renowned for its bravery or good management, so it would rather suffer the consequences.
Now due to poor management by Thompson et al they have missed the opportunity.
They should realise that they will make more friends than enemies if they put a rottweiller handler on him.
To be fair, it wasn’t the BBC’s standards (or lack of) that allowed the Sachs incident to be broadcast. It’s that the standards were not met and editorial procedures were not followed.
From what I’ve heard on Radio 2 (I do like Chris Evans, sorry) the BBC has kept the same procedures but given junior production staff a whole ton of extra paperwork to shore up the compliance issues. It was mentioned last week along the lines of “I wonder if he [Ross] realises how much work he’s created for our production team – I’ve never seen so much paperwork.”
Of course, if ‘stars’ didn’t feel quite so untouchable, and were made to feel accountable for their actions, it would never have happened let alone been broadcast. But that’s an issue for the whole world, not just the beeb.
Personally, I wouldn’t pay the arrogant and odious little gobshite 18p…
Now let`s have a little charity for Ross. Imagine if you saw him beaten up in the steet and his face permanently damaged. You would need to go over and soothe him with words like w@&^”*& and dogs t£$:(^!*and F^(/. He would apreciate that.
can you seriously write
”The BBC showed a lamentable lack of understanding of the offence that Wossy caused in the first instance and has made this compounded this ever since by demonstrating a revolting combination of arrogance and contempt for the license-payer.”
offence to who? those morons who complained only did so after the tabloids virtually told them too. only 1 or 2 (literally) people actually complained when they heard the show. the episode showed bandwagon jumping at its worst.
Milky
Thank you for the official line. The principal is that I am only allowed to complain if I personally, directly, experience something. I feel enlightened. So much for the entirety of student political protest. All middle class anti poverty campaigning is inappropriate and ‘moronic’ led by the vile liberal papers…..
Granted not many people heard the Ross/Brand broadcast, but we have all had to suffer the cumulative effect of the BBC “comedy policy”. An analogy would be living next door to anti social neighbours – who constantly irritate you year in year out but don’t do anything that is sufficiently bad in a single instance that would justify a call to the police (not that they would give a damn). The complaints were aimed at consequence of BBC policy and not necessarily directed at the show itself.
Ross and Brand pushed the boundary of taste: I do not need to hear the broadcast to be able to criticize a systemic problem that permits such abuse. The principal is well established by the liberal media itself. One did not have to go to a Bernard Manning show to be able to criticize its crass racism, and tens of millions were upset by the Danish cartoons: the BBC took them seriously – I don’t remember the BBC bravely broadcasting images of the cartoons to defend freedom of speech.
If anything the band wagon lies with the Woss/Brand apologists who cannot bear the fact that the Mail has a huge readership. The Mail was a catalyst in the avalanche of complaint, it did not force “those morons” to complain: they did so of their own free will. I realise that free will isn’t popular with the BBC but they have to put up with it whilst we still have some vestiges of liberty left.
MilkyWay:
The reason that the silent majority normaly remains silent is that they know that the BBC and the rest of the looney lefties never listen . Normally there is absolutely no point in comlaining as the BBC never listens. However once a campaign is started by a newspaper then there is some point in joining it because at this point the bastards at the BBC may have to listen.
Middleman | 18.01.09 – 2:38 pm |
To be fair, it wasn’t the BBC’s standards (or lack of) that allowed the Sachs incident to be broadcast. It’s that the standards were not met and editorial procedures were not followed.
That’s not really true. The BBC let Russell Brand’s production company run the show. He fired previous producers who tried to clip his wings, and IIRC he was on his fifth one, who understandably let him do whatever he wanted. An actual BBC senior producer gave the thumbs up to the broadcast. So the real problem is not that editorial procedures weren’t followed, but that they were, and came up wanting. They thought it was fine, according to their own standards.
Lesley Douglas allowed Brand to have free reign. As she was the Controller of Radio 2, that pretty much sums up BBC policy. She allowed the standards and editorial procedures to be rewritten in Brand’s favor.
From what I’ve heard on Radio 2 (I do like Chris Evans, sorry) the BBC has kept the same procedures but given junior production staff a whole ton of extra paperwork to shore up the compliance issues. It was mentioned last week along the lines of “I wonder if he [Ross] realises how much work he’s created for our production team – I’ve never seen so much paperwork.”
Funny how if the BBC had been more mature in the first place, never mind having a clue as to a real solution instead of a bureaucratic bandage, they wouldn’t have to do so much paperwork now. Awwww.
Of course, if ‘stars’ didn’t feel quite so untouchable, and were made to feel accountable for their actions, it would never have happened let alone been broadcast. But that’s an issue for the whole world, not just the beeb.
So the BBC is excused, because others do it, too? That’s no good.
Ben | 18.01.09 – 8:30 am | #
Bill Bailey – yes, Marcus Brigstock – no.
If we are in any doubt where the BBC stand on the “Sachsgate” affair then here it is:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7836944.stm
Lots of gushing and self-promotion from Brand and nary a murmur about the crass insult to Andrew Sachs himself. All at the Licence payers expense of course.
bbc put out this ridiculous “scandal” pages but never allows for feedback, as this might offend the editors.
Read the latest Private Eye – they are getting better at bbc bias – this paper should be obligatory reading matter for all over 15’s to show them how badly the country is run.
I’ve been a PE subscriber since the 70s. What PE investigates and reports tends to get picked up as an “exclusive” by one of the big dailies months later.
Long live Lord Gnome.
Milky,
Why does the BBC expect us to be shocked by, or even interested in,racist remarks made to Louis Hamilton in Spain, even though we never heard them then ?