The Ross \ Brand \ Sachs Kerfuffle...

[Saracen]

It takes a lot to shock me, but yes, there is a 'too far'. A joke about a murdered child just isn't going to be funny, is it?

Who laughs at that?

But that's the problem, isn't it?

What's funny to you might be offensive to others. And what's offensive to you might be funny to others. I don't find jokes about a murdered child funny either, though I suppose for the sake of accuracy, it's worth pointing out that Madeleine is missing, and "murdered" is supposition, albeit very probably a correct one.

But whatever the subject, there's going to be a point where what's funny to some is offensive to others. And both Ross and Brand ARE offensive, in many ways, to many people.

The fact that they are, in your opinion, "old" doesn't make what they do any less offensive to them, does it? Or are you suggesting that because it's offensive to older people but funny to you, well, that's all right then, because older people just don't have a fully developed or up to date sense of humour?

If we could find someone that found Maddy jokes funny, then he could claim the same.

That's why broadcasters have standards, both imposed internally by the likes of BBC editorial policy, and by laws.

And Brand and Ross, at the very least, broke the BBC internal standards by a LONG way, and perhaps, broke the law too.


There's always been a line between "edgy" and offensive. No broadcaster can seriously hope to operate if they are going to guarantee never to offend anyone. So "edgy" is legit, providing it stays within all the relevant mandated standards. But if you go beyond those standards in the search for edginess, be prepared for a blowback. And if you go as far beyond them as these two muppets, be prepared for that blowback to be a hurricane.

If 30,000, or whatever the figure is now, saw fit to complain to the BBC, and more yet to Ofcom, the one thing you can be sure of is that those that actually found it offensive will be a LOT more than that, simply because apathy prevents most people from bothering to complain, even if they were offended.

[santa claus]

Well said. I'm still shocked at the salary the BBC are prepared to pay to, well, anyone, for this kind of job. What an insult to every person who fights for a 1.5% pay rise of their ordinary wage.

[Stewart]

Well, Saracen, I never said I found what Ross and Brand did funny - I've actually said many times that they were out of order.

Thing is, if you come down like a ton of bricks on someone everytime they do something a bit edgy, because the older members of society who still want to watch The 2 Ronnies, decided to complain, then you end up with a stale, uninteresting BBC.

They were wrong to do what they did, that much is obvious.

The media storm, sackings, 12 week suspensions, etc, are all part of a vast over reaction.

And 30,000 people might have complained now... 2, yes 2 people, complained when the show was actually aired.

[santa claus]

They were wrong to do what they did, that much is obvious.

Well that done gone and ruined a potentially good row. Bah

[Stewart]

You mean you don't read a thread you are going to post in? I've said that already.

[santa claus]

You mean you don't read a thread you are going to post in? I've said that already.

Yep, fair do's you did. Saracen says it with so much more panache though

[Stewart]

Well some would say he says it with 200 words where 1 will do. God bless 'im.

I do tend to actually read what he says though, no matter how long. You should try doing the same.

[Stringent]

A comedian puts a swear word in, and instantly its funny. Sorry what? Why is that funny? Where is the genius in that? I just prefer clean humour. You may say I sound like a granddad, but anyone can swear, we all hear it every day, most of the time its not funny (except when someone realises they have just been had or whatever!).

But I think we have taken this off topic again, more about humour than what happened, but thats my fault! Oh .... Naa ain't gonna say it!

Each to his own with humour, thats why we are all different. Be boring if we all laughed at why did the chicken cross the road now wouldn't it?

[Clunk]

Apparently Ross and Brand have been ordered to sign the Sachs offenders register.

That'll learn um.

[Stewart]

I'd say, rather than something being funny because there is swearing in it, its more - something does not become unfunny because swearing is added.

I see no reason for you to dislike Lee Evans comedy just because he started swearing a bit and added innuendo. I mean, you are a grown man after all, as is he, and this is the 21st century.

The grandad remark was simply pointing out that that attitude, not liking a comedian because of a bit of swearing and innuendo, as well as harking back to Tommy Cooper, is quite an old fashioned one.

So Lee Evans started swearing a bit... this isn't 1948, I'm sure you could contain your horror and disgust at a few naughty words in his act to still get some enjoyment out of it.

[Stewart]

Apparently Ross and Brand have been ordered to sign the Sachs offenders register.

That'll learn um.

5 1/2 out of 10.

Not a total disaster mate.

[Saracen]

Well, Saracen, I never said I found what Ross and Brand did funny - I've actually said many times that they were out of order.

Thing is, if you come down like a ton of bricks on someone everytime they do something a bit edgy, because the older members of society who still want to watch The 2 Ronnies, decided to complain, then you end up with a stale, uninteresting BBC.

They were wrong to do what they did, that much is obvious.

The media storm, sackings, 12 week suspensions, etc, are all part of a vast over reaction.

And 30,000 people might have complained now... 2, yes 2 people, complained when the show was actually aired.

I didn't say you said what they did was funny, but we have been talking about the kind of "edgy" comedy they (and others) do, and as an example, when Stringent said he didn't find all the trashy talk and swearing funny, you said he sounded "old" and "like someone's grandad".

Nor have I seen anyone suggesting anyone come down like a ton of bricks everytime something "edgy" is said, and I've certainly said the opposite. And, there's been plenty of "edgy" comedy where no bricks at all have fallen.

Nor, in my opinion, was what the R&B chuckle brothers did "something a bit edgy", to use the characterisation you used. So, did that characterisation apply to this stunt? Because if not, nobody is arguing about "edgy" comedy having a place on TV. There's loads of it .... in fact, these days it seems as if everybody is being "edgy", and perhaps they feel they have to be to get on air? If so, that's an issue for TV executives to face up to.

But either we have a standard that's acceptable, or we don't. The whole point of "edgy" is that you push boundaries, isn't it? So one comedian pushes it a bit, then his rivals push a bit further, then a bit more, then he pushes back.

So you start off with someone pushing at that boundary, and by definition, if everybody is being "edgy", the edge is continuously moving further and further, with what we thought was a standard being constantly eroded.

It's not that long ago that using the F-word on TV would get the program pulled and the comedian fired. Now, it seems that most comedians have trouble telling a joke without using it. So what happened to that standard?

And therefore, what will happen to our standards if people keep pushing them?

And precisely what have we actually achieved by that moving of standards? All we've achieved is that people like Jamie Oliver can produce a program about cooking, spending about half his time on air swearing like a trooper and nobody bats an eyelid. Well, that's a wonderful standard to set, don't you think. And we have "edgy" comedians, in large part, to thank for that.

And that move in standards has got to the point where, for instance, my septuagenarian mother-in-law can't even watch a TV cookery program at 9PM without blushing furiously, because she does, bless her, find such language offensive. We have so much to thank those edgy comedians for, don't we?

All those edgy comedians are doing with "edginess" is exploiting a cheap trick, that of getting audience by constantly trying to shock. The vast bulk of the time, it isn't actually necessary for the comedy, but they do it anyway, because what once was used to shock is now used as a matter of course.

How far do we want standards to erode? Because whatever people see on TV, and radio, and in the press, and coming from celebs, starts to seek into everyday life. And it is NOT, far too often, any form of improvement.

The media has a responsibility that comes from the power it's role confers. It has a duty to uphold those standards, and say to the like of Ross and Brand, so far and no further. That's what standards are for, it's what producers and editors should be enforcing and in this case, clearly didn't. And that's the real issue .... standards, editorial control and oversight (or lack of), and procedures within the BBC that allowed this to go on air. I mean, it's not just the two idiots that pulled the stunt, it's the people that thought it was okay to air it.

[Stewart]

He said he didn't like comedy with bad language, and did like Tommy Cooper... you don't think that's an old fashioned view?

And that move in standards has got to the point where, for instance, my septuagenarian mother-in-law can't even watch a TV cookery program at 9PM without blushing furiously, because she does, bless her, find such language offensive. We have so much to thank those edgy comedians for, don't we?

Yes mate, but that cooking prog is not aimed at your septuagenarian mother-in-law. It is not Fanny Cradock's How To Cook On A Ration, it is a modern cooking show, with a younger presenter, aimed at a much younger audience.

What are you suggesting, we all pretend its the 1940s, so your mother-in-law can enjoy a cooking show?

[Stringent]

If swearing, edgy and sexual innuendo comedy is all the 21st century, why do schools still not allow it and discourage it, why is it considered rude and offensive generally? Hexus is a 21st century forum, it doesn't allow swearing or such innuendo to be had (unless in one thread ... but even thats moderated and watched). So its not just me being 'grandpa' the older comedians had routines which were thought out, yes based on life but without all the foulness. Its not needed IMO.

I also said I do enjoy the modern comedians, Bill Cosby for one, most of his stuff is clean and its funny. The comedy in Strictly Come Dancing between the judges when they have a go at each other, thats funny. Is that old fashioned? Well if it is, it makes me laugh, so whats wrong with it?

You like the stuff done by the likes of Lee Evans, whoever fine. I am not going to call you a young upstart.

[Stewart]

If swearing, edgy and sexual innuendo comedy is all the 21st century, why do schools still not allow it and discourage it

Erm... because stand up comedy and being in a school are completely different things. Yes?

Also, why would a comedy act with swearing in it be any less thought out?

[Saracen]

....

Yes mate, but that cooking prog is not aimed at your septuagenarian mother-in-law. It is not Fanny Cradock's How To Cook On A Ration, it is a modern cooking show, with a younger presenter, aimed at a much younger audience.

What are you suggesting, we all pretend its the 1940s, so your mother-in-law can enjoy a cooking show?

No, I'm suggesting that everyone presenting on TV refrain from doing things that will offend a good proportion of the viewing public unless there's very good reason for it. And, so far as Jamie Oliver was concerned, there was no good reason for it other than that he couldn't be bothered to avoid it. And it didn't just offend my mother-in-law, it offended me. And I'm certainly not a septuagenarian anything.

TV audiences don't consist entirely of people that don't object to constant foul language. So don't do it unless there's a real point, because if you do, you're causing offence needlessly.

And there comes a point where you don't do things even if there is a point .... though I'm struggling to see the point behind the Brand/Ross stunt, other than cruelty. The problem, as I've said several times, is deciding where that point is. And, for that matter, who decides where that point is.

It's not unreasonable, in my opinion, for an elderly lady to be able to watch a TV cookery program on a mainstream channel about 9PM without having her senses abused by a barrage of swearing. It's not as if it's "edgy" comedy by a cutting edge comedian, is it?