The Ross \ Brand \ Sachs Kerfuffle...

[Rave]

I pay his wages. He owes me entertainment.

Oh right- so by that logic I can demand to be entertained by Songs Of Praise, Last Of The Summer Wine, Gardener's Question Time, and Blue Peter. I really hope that was sarcasm, but in the absence of any smilies or mitigating argument from you.....

Looks like the fact that their salaries have been brought into the public eye has raised a few questions both from the public, and the government. Kind of funny how the people who run the country get paid less than someone presenting a TV show. By several million.

Running the country is a privilege. The BBC is obliged by the terms of its charter to provide light entertainment. There's no shortage of people quewing up to run the country, most of them entirely incompetent, but the market sets the price for entertainers who are good enough to reliably pull in big audiences. If you don't like the BBC's charter, then I suggest you write to your MP about it. I personally don't watch Ross's show, or Strictly Come Dancing (much), Top Gear, or Eastenders, but plenty of people do and I have no problem with my licence fee paying for that, since in return I get Newsnight, HIGNIFY, QI, University Challenge, The Today Program (and PM), and a bunch of other interesting stuff.

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?

I've seen a few Madeleine jokes that made me laugh.

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.

Indeed. But apparently only 2 of them were listening to the show. To me, that's viewer (or in this case listener) discretion in action.

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.

Erm....what? 2 people complained after hearing the show. 35,000 people complained after Sachs went to the papers. It's preposterous to suggest that the original broadcast of the show offended even 35,000 people let alone a multiple of that number. Somewhere in this thread you claimed that you were offended after the show was re-broadcast. Well I listen to BBC Radio all the time, I constantly surf between Radios 1, 2, and 4 to find something interesting and I have never heard it rebroadcast. I had to listen to it on Youtube.

Are you saying that the BBC compounded the offence by repeating the broadcast on their own networks? Because I find this very hard to believe.

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?

It died, and rightly so.

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

Hopefully they'll all die, and then people won't keep going about being needlessly offended. Personally (amongst other things) I get offended by the government spending my tax money on bailing out people who are far richer than me.

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.

Too right I do. I think it's absolutely great.

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?

9pm is, and has always been, the Watershed. If your M-I-L wants cookery before that time she's got Delia, Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall, Rick Stein, Ready Steady Cook and I daresay a bunch of other programs to enjoy. Are you seriously suggesting that there's a shortage of cookery programs that don't contain swearing?

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.

I don't think swearing's edgy, I just like it. I pay my licence fee the same as you do, and thus far I've never complained to the BBC about the lack of swearing in programs, so perhaps you could accept that the BBC has to cater for everyone, and butt out of complaining about the sweary programs that I enjoy, just as I don't endeavour to inject extra swearing into yours?

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.

In your opinion.

The media has a responsibility that comes from the power it's role confers. It has a duty to uphold those standards,

The BBC has a responsibility to uphold the standards laid down by its charter. What those standards should be is a matter for democratic debate, since the BBC is a public broadcaster. As and when that debate starts, I'll be vocally lobbying for a 'Swearing All Round' policy, as is my democratic right.

The commercial media OTOH have little to no responsibility to uphold any standards. If you don't like what they're providing, then simply don't consume their output, or start your own media company. I utterly hate News International but I'm not suggesting that they should be censored.

[Stewart]

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?

No, but it is the reality of modern TV. As I said, this was a show presented by a younger presenter, aimed at a younger audience. It was not aimed at your mother in law, and therefore not suitable for your mother in law.

As Rave says, I'd be bored watching Songs of Praise, but it would be foolish to complain and demand its changed to suit me and my ilk, because its not aimed at me.

Hugh Fernley Thingymebobwhatshisface sounds more like the show you are looking for.

River Cottage and all that. No bad language there.

[Mike Fishcake]

Yeah yeah, I know it's another facebook group, but I thought this was relevant:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=51997652072

Let’s See The Daily Mail Abide By Their Own Standards

Given that the Mail loves to encourage people to send formal complaints to other organisations, I wondered whether they’d like it if it was done to them. If you’d like to see The Daily Mail get some of the treatment they like to see meted out to others, join this group and send a letter of complaint both to them and to the Press Complaints Commission.

[santa claus]

Oh right- so by that logic I can demand to be entertained by Songs Of Praise, Last Of The Summer Wine, Gardener's Question Time, and Blue Peter. I really hope that was sarcasm, but in the absence of any smilies or mitigating argument from you....

I was about to say that you have quoted me out of context (and you know it) but then I read that:

I've seen a few Madeleine jokes that made me laugh.

and now I can't even be bothered.

[Rave]

I was about to say that you have quoted me out of context (and you know it)

I didn't know it at all, but I acknowledged that it was a possibility.

but then I read that:

....and now I can't even be bothered.

Oh I see, so my point isn't worth responding to because, in your opinion, I have a sick sense of humour. Well, that's up to you. Having considered the matter today, slightly (though not much) more sober than I was yesterday, I can't honestly say that I did find any of the McCann jokes I saw funny; but nor was I hugely offended by the fact that some of my acquaintances did, and consequently circulated them to me. In my opinion no attempt at humour is out-of-bounds, just as no argument should ever be shut down on the grounds of propriety. For example, I think it's wrong to make holocaust denial a crime, as they do in Germany- far better IMO to face down rudeness and stupidity with reasoned argument rather than knee-jerk censorship backed up with the threat of imprisonment.

Tony Blair didn't resign for telling parliament a pack of lies about Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction. IMO we live in a completely warped world when that's O.K., but a Radio 2 presenter has to resign because he was indiscreet about his relationship with a old bloke's granddaughter.

[Mrs Dak]

http://entertainment.uk.msn.com/cele...5742&GT1=61504

Burning them?

[santa claus]

I've seen a few Madeleine jokes that made me laugh.

I can't honestly say that I did find any of the McCann jokes I saw funny

Make your mind up.

I hope that the picture of the utterly innocent Madeleine will bring you clarity of mind in the choice of which statement you should retract. The first one is even more offensive than Ross & Brand.

Can you really look at the face of that child and laugh?