About Lee: Former students' union president and intermitent blogger since the turn of the century, who's aim is to promote objective thinking and a break from partisan politics when discussing the issues of the day. The Brand and Ross saga continues.
Fri 31st Oct 2008 – (7 Comments)
I don't think they should be nationally vilified. I think we should all listen to it before we pass judgement. I wonder if a lot of those people that complained will have read what was said in the paper, when it's taken out of context it can sound very different.
Who's words? A measured and objective leader perhaps? Someone in charge of the country urging calm? No...hostess of Big Brother, Davina McCall. The person that SHOULD have been uttering such words was too busy condemning the BBC and suggesting that they should be doing more to "give in" to tabloid pressure.
Because, essentially, that is all this is. I don't need to go in to the figures. 2 Complaints rose to tens of thousands purely based on a campaign lead by papers like the Daily Mail. Is it about the crass comedy of the men involved? Of course not, Brand made an even worse mistake when he prank called the police a few months ago and this warranted very little mention at all, certainly no more than a days news.
OK, so maybe it's not really about the people...but maybe it's what they did exactly. Prank calling an elderly gentleman? Utterly despicable right? Except that Fonejacker frequently displays older people being prank called to either steal their personal data, or to incorporate lewd comments. As Terry Tibbs the Fonejacker propositions the seller of a statue in one show. On another an elderly woman is phoned up on behalf of "lube up your butthole and dance the fandango limited". Her response was that she's long past the dancing fandango stage of her life, perhaps we don't really give "old" people enough credit for having a fucking sense of humour?
So if it's not about the people or the act, maybe it's about the gross misuse of peoples money? Brown wades in, as does Jack Straw indeed, when a joke goes wrong with someone that was scheduled to be on the show...but tying up police resources? No-one pressed for the police to charge Brand, and no charges were brought. Despite the more present danger of someone being able to commit a crime while Brand kept a police line tied up, no fuss was made after the day it was first reported. Offend an "old" man on the other hand, oh shit...better head for cover!
No, it's not about public money, it's not about the people, it's just about the BBC. This whole argument is a convenient proxy for tabloids to take a stab at the institution and to, in turn, call in to question its credibility as a tax payer funded organisation.
The reality for me is that it is despicable that it has reached this stage. We have hosts of shows that are lambasted by the general public as being mindless and pointless being the only people publicly conveying reason across the news. Rockers famed for causing a fuss themselves wonder exactly what we're all getting our knickers in a twist about. But Brown and Cameron are practically falling over themselves, as are any other politician with aspirations above their station, to be "in tune" with the public mood.
It's worrying that it's our politicians, again, acting like the imbeciles. It's worrying that they never, ever, take an issue forward unless it's endorsed by the tabloids. And even more worryingly we let our media get in to the state where the Ross and Brand story gets top billing while another country descends in to REAL chaos and over 200 people are left dead in an earthquake.
A few years ago a Tsunami wreaked havoc on the far East, and captured the minds and generosity of the public. I said at the time that it was empty and vapid concern, we were all guilty about celebrating gluttonous Christmases and felt compelled to care. This episode shows just how true this is, with multiple crisis' occurring around the world we seemingly couldn't give a shit until we have drained every bit of blood we can out of two men that are now nothing more than representations of an organisation that a minority of the public are fundamentally obsessed with destroying.
Poor wounded, displaced and war-torn people...if only they had their dilemmas occur when one of our celebrities didn't make a simple mistake.
Oh, and I haven't mentioned the grand-daughter in this article because she a) has drummed up enough publicity just well enough on her own, and will probably continue to do so, and b) I think she's a fucking cunt.
Share this article: 
Facebook
Digg
StumbleUpon
Subscribe: Site RSS feed - don't miss a post!
Comments
2. James - 1 Nov 2008 - 14:03
Tabloid ’pressure’ cannot exist independently of the tabloid readership. The Daily Mail could have decided to pick up and run with something else the BBC had broadcast and similar results would have followed. The fact the people didnt actually listen to radio show is an irrelevance. There is already a vague nation-wide resentment at the way the BBC makes this ’Marie Antoinette’ assumption that it can just extract loads of money from people and throw it around on any old shit. But unless the papers latch onto one thing people have no way of focusing this anger effectively.
We should defend the principle of public broadcasting against its opponents but we shouldnt automatically side with the arrogant BBC bosses. They have got to wake up to the fact that as a PUBLIC broadcaster, they cannot produce whatever programmes they like. If you try to cater to the retards who think Russell Brand is funny then you’re effectively shitting on a very large section of the population. If the BBC expects people to pay to be insulted then they are headed for total abolition.
3. Adrian B - 3 Nov 2008 - 11:56
I can imagine Davina Mccall as Marie Antoinette – “Let them switch off their radios”
“I don’t think they should be nationally vilified. I think we should all listen to it before we pass judgement.”
But why should I be forced, under the threat of prison, to pay for a pair of long-haired twats to chat shit and bollocks when they can do it easily on commercial TV and radio?
“I wonder if a lot of those people that complained will have read what was said in the paper, when it’s taken out of context it can sound very different.”
Er, but why should I be forced, under the threat of prison, to pay for a pair long-haired twats to chat shit and bollocks when they can do it easily on commercial TV and radio?
The point is, we should all be prepared to take offence. The right to swear, insult people and tell sick jokes is a right which must be defended if we are to remain a free society. But none of those who have rushed to defend the BBC have been able to answer these two simple questions:
1. Why should I PAY for something which offends me?
2. Moreover, why should I PAY for people to offend me, when they can offend me without my having to pay them?
Why Lee have you tried to evade these fundamental questions? This is what it all boils down to – the issue of the prank phone calls is actually quite peripheral.
Because you don’t just pay for them to offend you, you pay for the whole of the BBC to offend you, to read between the lines.
5. Lee Griffin - 5 Nov 2008 - 04:56
"Er, but why should I be forced, under the threat of prison, to pay for a pair long-haired twats to chat shit and bollocks when they can do it easily on commercial TV and radio?"
You pay nothing, people get so uppity about £140 a year. It doesn’t even pay for the most minimum wage grip or runner to do their job on a show. I assume you don’t dislike EVERYTHING the BBC does, including radio and web content, and if so then your license fee is more than justified simply by the prospect of wages involved providing what you like.
I have no sympathy for the blinkered and selective moanings of people that wish to take a jab at a license fee that really, in the grand scheme of things, isn’t a problem at all.
If you think Brand is going to offend you, then don’t listen to him. Don’t listen to anything that isn’t going to offend you. If you are offended, complain, and if it breaks rules rather than your precious sensibilities then something will be done about it. Unfortunately it seems as if precious sensibilities being offended are also means to punish people simply doing what many other less anal people enjoy.
6. Adrian B - 6 Nov 2008 - 12:39
"You pay nothing, people get so uppity about £140 a year."
Well I don’t quite agree. If its so negligible why do around 400,000 households try to avoid paying it? Not forgetting that it costs around 3 times as much to catch them as the license fees would have raised if they were paid.
Actually, I’m surprised that it’s still about at all. This is after all, the age of the internet and unlimited TV channels, so there is always less and less reason for it to exist. So I rather think the onus is on you to set out why the license fee ought to be continued - Saying that it’s "only £140 a year" is not a logical argument but is only excuse making. Think about it - why should I have to justify NOT paying money (the amount is quite irrelevant) for something which is basically non-essential. It’s MY money after all not the BBC’s.
(By the way, the license fee is not at the forefront of mind, I don’t think anybody gets THAT uppity about it. That’s why I don’t quite understand why the BBC’s defenders are whining that "there are so many more important things going on in world" That goes without saying; I suspect this is just an attempt to divert attention and snatch the real centre of the argument out of sight.)
In addition, I think you reveal a severe lack of empathy when you mock people’s feelings as "precious sensibilities" (Hmm I wonder if you’d be so quick to dismiss complaints made by black people or gays about homophobic or racist jokes on the radio - a lot of people enjoy racist and homophobic jokes so why not cater for their tastes as well?) I think your remarks are particularly thoughtless considering that the economic environment is becoming much tougher for a lot of people. At a time when most are identifying non-essentials I think it’s rather an effrontery that such vulgar, loutish wankers should be so lavishly paid for by license fee payers for something which is so trivial, debased and comparatively worthless. (By the way, the people complaining are not ‘pensioners’ as the BBC fanatics at the Guardian seem to think, I am only 22, whereas the over-75s get their TV for free so they would have little reason to complain)
And again, a rather obvious point which needs repeating because you seem unwilling to address it: Ross and Brand can easily and more uninhibitedly do their ‘stuff’ elsewhere on commercial radio and all their fans can stay up till two in the morning listening to their terribly "anarchic" adolescent twatness. However, in the meantime, I think most normal people would much prefer to see the BBC cut back, the license fee halved and the money spent more considerately on programs which might not otherwise be produced on commercial TV. You might think these people are anal but in my opinion I think people who shout: "He fucked your grand-daughter!" down a telephone tend to be arseholes of the worst kind – fucking cunts of the type I would be tempted to smash in the face very hard. Actually laughing at such a joke is clearly a sign of total brain-death. I absolutely and violently object to ANY of my money, (let alone £140 of it a year) being given to an organization which allows this type of intolerable, tasteless rubbish to be broadcast. Even if there are a few BBC programs I might like, they appear to be wasting most of my money and I would sooner go and spend it on some books which are in any case a better informational resource than a BBC ’documentary’ could ever be.
It’s very simple, unless the BBC as it exists is utterly reformed at cut back, there isn’t a good enough reason to pay a license fee and it should be swiftly abolished. I’ve asked you to make a case for it but you can’t seem to do it.
7. Lee Griffin - 6 Nov 2008 - 16:30
"Saying that it’s "only £140 a year" is not a logical argument but is only excuse making."
Well I never stated it as an argument as to why the license fee was a good thing. I stated it because you said...
"Why should I PAY for something which offends me?"
The argument of what you pay, and what you pay for is linked to the amount you’re paying...as I described and discussed in my above comment.
"It’s very simple, unless the BBC as it exists is utterly reformed at cut back, there isn’t a good enough reason to pay a license fee and it should be swiftly abolished. I’ve asked you to make a case for it but you can’t seem to do it."
I’ve made my case in the past, but in a nutshell... the BBC exists to provide programming that is not necessarily mainstream, wouldn’t necessarily get past commercial producer’s secretaries and fills the license fee payer’s wishes for content. This is an inclusive process which means things may be paid for that some don’t wish to fund, but it’s swings and round abouts.
When it comes to the likes of Brand and Ross, it’s always quite funny to see people talk about how the likes of them could be on a different channel...making a very market based argument...and then seem to blindly abandon simple common sense that dictates that the BBC has to have an element of commercial viability in the viewers eyes to ensure it remains "popular" and drives viewers of such content to the other stuff that exists.
Basically...your argument is based on a selfish and disproportionate anger to something being funded that you don’t like. My argument is based on a more objective and holistic analysis of the BBC and the benefits it can bring, despite the stuff they produce that I don’t like.
"a lot of people enjoy racist and homophobic jokes so why not cater for their tastes as well?"
You wish to compare the use of hateful and discriminatory language against a demographic, to an act of disrespect to an individual? Please...
"fucking cunts of the type I would be tempted to smash in the face very hard."
Clearly you are a very upstanding individual with a strong moral and ethical core...
"If its so negligible why do around 400,000 households try to avoid paying it?"
Because they want something for nothing.
"Even if there are a few BBC programs I might like, they appear to be wasting most of my money and I would sooner go and spend it on some books which are in any case a better informational resource than a BBC ’documentary’ could ever be."
Your money would pay for roughly one day’s wages for one low level employee in the production of one episode of ONE show that you "might like" so "most" of your money is already going to where you want it to be. This is the simple fact of the situation, and why arguments about how expensive the license fee is can only be relevant if you like nothing the BBC broadcasts and never use their website.
Top 5:
Latest Comments:
Lee Griffin in... Chicken or the Egg?
thomas in... Chicken or the Egg?
Lee Griffin in... Chicken or the Egg?
thomas in... Chicken or the Egg?
Lee Griffin in... The Brand and Ross saga continues.
Lee Griffin in... Chicken or the Egg?
Lee Griffin in... Tories actually are preparing to govern...
Adrian B in... The Brand and Ross saga continues.
thomas in... Chicken or the Egg?
thomas in... Chicken or the Egg?
Calendar:
| « October 2008 » | ||||||
| Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
Search:
Latest Politalks:
So what the hell is going on, Labour are slumping in the polls and yet those most naturally in their shadow able to take their place (the Lib Dems) are failing to capitalise in the polls. And even though the Tories are enjoying high times so much they must think it's the 80's all over again (in more ways than one) they have failed to deliver one serious or credible attack against the government that would show them to be the true heir's to the throne. So to speak. Anyway, on with this weeks Politalks. NSFW as usual, transcript can be found if you go through to read more!
(Wed 30th Apr 2008) SUBSCRIBE
Transcript and full size video
Latest News:
Categories:
Bloggers (20)
ebuzz (1)
Post (253)
--Art (1)
--Bloggers under attack (1)
--Comedy (2)
----Satire (4)
------Politalks (10)
--Community (3)
--Countries (0)
----Australia (1)
----China (2)
----Counties/Towns (0)
------Bristol (3)
------Cornwall (2)
----Darfur (3)
----EU (12)
----Iraq (1)
----Italy (0)
----Middle East (5)
----USA (17)
--Critical response (25)
--Culture (3)
--Deaths (4)
--Demographics (0)
----Children (12)
------Boys (0)
------Girls (0)
------Yobs (7)
----Disability (2)
----Farmers (3)
----Pensioners (1)
--Disgusting traits (6)
----Apathy (4)
----Authoritarianism (27)
----Avoiding questions (10)
----Boring (2)
----Clandestine (12)
----Discrimination (17)
----Flip flopping (6)
----Forced worship (2)
----Hidden agenda (11)
----Hypocrisy (16)
----Immaturity (3)
----Misrepresentation (5)
----Moronic (17)
----Neglect (5)
----NIMBYism (3)
----Over-reaction (3)
----Petulance (3)
----Positive action (2)
----Prejudice (10)
----Selfishness (15)
----Undermining (8)
----Vigilantism (3)
----Vile (5)
----Xenophobia (2)
--False Priorities (26)
--Film (2)
--Gaming (5)
--Internet (7)
----P2P (3)
--Language (2)
--Lists (2)
--Long time coming (7)
--Music (2)
--Oddball (8)
--Organisations (1)
----BBC (11)
----BBFC (1)
----Charity (2)
----Compass (1)
----Councils (4)
------Bristol Council (4)
----Dentists (3)
----FSA (1)
----ITV (1)
----Liberal Conspiracy (31)
------Casting the net (27)
----MAMAA (1)
----Mary Whitehouse (1)
----Media (30)
------Daily Mail (0)
------Grieving Widows (1)
------Guardian (0)
------Telegraph (1)
------The Sun (0)
------Times (1)
----National Lottery (1)
----NHS (8)
----Northern Rock (5)
----Police (9)
----Television (2)
------Big Brother (1)
----Transport (9)
------First Bus (1)
------Oyster cards (1)
------Trains (1)
----Women\'s Institute (1)
--Other traits (0)
----Best practice (6)
----Common sense (6)
----Cool (0)
----Fairness (4)
----Honesty (4)
--Politics (132)
----Crime issues (15)
------Child Abuse (2)
------Justice (3)
------Knives (5)
------Law (13)
--------Libel (1)
------Prohibition (7)
------Sex Offenders (1)
----Economic issues (16)
------Benefits (9)
------Budget (3)
------Fuel Poverty (6)
------Housing (6)
------Inflation (4)
------Minimum Wage (2)
------Money (37)
------Nationalisation (3)
------Poverty Line (2)
------Privatisation (2)
------Rich/Poor divide (5)
------Salaries (6)
------Taxes (18)
--------Windfall tax (1)
------Unemployment (5)
----Education issues (17)
------Schools (9)
--------Exclusions (1)
--------National Curriculum (4)
--------Teachers (1)
------Students (3)
--------Student Loans (2)
------University (5)
----Elections (28)
------Electoral reform (7)
------US Primaries 2008 (0)
----Ethical issues (3)
------Abortion (3)
------Age restrictions (4)
------Animal cruelty (4)
------Animal testing (1)
------Capital punishment (2)
------Corporate Profits (2)
------Curfews (1)
------Deportation (1)
------Detention without charge (17)
------DNA (3)
------Equality (1)
------Feminism (1)
------File sharing (1)
------ID Cards (6)
------Organ donation (4)
------Prostitution (3)
--------Brothels (1)
------Surveillance (6)
--------CCTV (1)
------Terrorism (9)
----Foreign issues (2)
------Military (5)
------Trafficking (1)
------War (3)
----Global issues (4)
------Climate change (11)
------Environment (11)
--------Energy (1)
----------Renewables (1)
----Liberalism (1)
----Local issues (3)
----Parliament (20)
------Bills (6)
--------Changing clocks (3)
------Debate (1)
------MPs (7)
--------Alan Johnson (1)
--------Alistair Darling (2)
--------Bill Rammell (2)
--------Boris Johnson (1)
--------Caroline Flint (3)
--------David Cameron (12)
--------David Davis (1)
--------David Lammy (1)
--------Derek Conway (2)
--------Frank Field (0)
--------George Osbourne (0)
--------Gordon Brown (28)
--------Harriet Harperson (0)
--------Hazel Blears (2)
--------Jack Straw (1)
--------Jacqui Smith (14)
--------Julia Goldsworthy (1)
--------Keith Vaz (2)
--------Lynne Featherstone (1)
--------Maggie Thatcher (1)
--------MP Expenses (2)
--------Nick Clegg (13)
--------Norman Lamb (1)
--------Tim Yeo (1)
--------Vince Cable (3)
------PMQs (13)
----Personal issues (5)
------Age (4)
------Health issues (10)
--------Alcohol (11)
--------Food (10)
----------Fast Food (1)
--------Obesity (1)
--------Smoking (1)
------Patriotism (1)
------Sex (5)
------Work-life balance (1)
----Political Parties (2)
------Coalition (0)
------Democrats (10)
------Labour (43)
------Lib Dem (31)
------Rebellion (1)
------Republicans (5)
------Tory (30)
----Political vernacular (0)
------Balanced and Sustainable (2)
------Change (4)
------Crisis (2)
------Gimmick (2)
------Propaganda (4)
------Targets (10)
------Waste (4)
----Race issues (3)
------Immigration (7)
----Scandal (4)
------Political donations (3)
----Strikes (0)
----UK Constitution (1)
--Protests (10)
--Public engagement (9)
----Polls (7)
----Referendum (2)
--Public figures (0)
----Barack Obama (13)
----Celebrity (2)
----Heath Ledger (2)
----Hillary Clinton (11)
----John Edwards (3)
----John McCain (0)
----Sarah Palin (0)
--Religion (9)
----Christianity (2)
----God squad (7)
----Hinduism (0)
----Islam (1)
--Sport (3)
----Olympics 2008 (4)
----Olympics 2012 (2)
----Paralympics 2008 (1)
--Statistics (12)
--Worrying trends (10)
Reviews (13)
Share (52)
1. septicisle - 31 Oct 2008 - 21:35
Well, judging by some of the videos now circulating, she’s certainly had some fucking cunt....