Brand values

Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross could face prosecution after obscene on air phone calls to Fawlty Towers actor, 78

What is the data protection angle on this?

If Al Capone can be nailed for tax evasion, might one wonder how Messrs. Brand and /or Ross came to have in their possession Mr. Sachs' home number?

If it turns out a BBC person handed a piece of confidential internal information over without his permission, would the consequences not be quite serious all round?

Addendum:

Seems the call was pre-booked, so my hope that a bit of data protection fun & games may ensure is a non-starter.

Anyway, I now learn some more...

Brand apologises for Sachs slur

Slur? Isn't that 'illegal obscene phone call'?

Plus a few choice bits...

"That's his answer machine, even if we cut it out of the show, it's still on his answer machine."

"After discussing how Sachs might hang himself as a result.."

"Sach's agent Meg Poole said that she had emailed and written to the BBC to complain about the calls but the BBC insisted it had not received a complaint about the incident."

Another day, another insight into the cosy, publicly-funded world of the BBC and its immune -from-anything employees in front of the mic... and behind.

"The BBC said last night it was standing by Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross"

BBC - Brand 'sorry' for telephone stunt - that's OK then. Can I say I am sorry if I don't pay my licence fee and avoid jail?

Guardian - 'Unacceptable and offensive': Russell Brand on BBC Radio 2 - 'Unacceptable' is getting way up there with 'Sorry'. With the now farcical 'being looked into' to follow. You might fancy scooting over to Michael White's essay today on hypocrisy, too. Though he was referring to politics. Maybe it's not possible in the media.

Gaurdian - Andrew Sachs was not the only victim of Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand - Funny. Michael White has an essay on hypocrisy this very day, though it happens only with politics, apparently.

Hey, no responsibility without accountability, eh?

Remind me, what DO you have to do at Aunty to actually find anything, as such, actually happens to stop it happening again?

Usually I go to the top, and if that fails the shareholders. But as everything about this £3.5B entity is as unique as the way it is funded, I guess I'd best just reflect on how well the politico-media establishment is serving this cutting-edge, world-leading country.

Oh.

Ch 4 - BBC apologises for Brand's antics

Guardian - Outraged Sun driven to print topless pics of Andrew Sachs's granddaughter - Interesting watching/reading the liberal media tie itself in knots over this, essentially erring on a relative's lifestyle choice to justify actions elsewhere. If one decides, in its defence of the BBC and its own, that he was 'asking for it' because well, she was too, the fallout with the sisterhood will be special indeed.

Still, they are diverting attention away from Aunty at the scummy tabloids (who do deserve all they get), for which she will doubtless be grateful.

Can't help but wonder that this might make the likely lads' agents' negotiating positions a little less sparkly, mind. So if we do end up still lumbered with such... talent... the fee might not take such a hit in their 'essential' directions, and the money might be spent productively elsewhere.

I am sure possibly a few in-house employees might agree. Even if the BBC itself does not stand behind them as much as others. Then says it's 'unacceptable'. Then apologises. Sort of. But doesn't DO anything mind. Hey, you never know, they might end up NOT standing behind folk they did at first, and supporting others they haven't before. Could happen.

HIGNFY and Mock the Week should be fun. Unless 'the word' goes out. Mind you, between senior management and some central offices doing the hokey-cokey as various staff luvvies and others implode elsewhere there may not be many left who are allowed on!

Telegraph - Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross should be sued for breach of privacy

You whining trouts are reacting not to the event, but to the media’s sensationalism of the event.'

Quite right. In future when events happen, and 'non-acceptable' (well, that's all of 'em, really) media subsequently report the facts (what they do with their opinions, as with many bloggers, I could care less about), no one should pay any attention. Unless they were 'there'. That'll work. Think of the consequences if some are inspired to take your notion to a more extreme conclusion in areas you do care about. 'Careful what you wish for' springs to mind.

Good luck with the rest of the rationale. Being factually selective does help with self-delusion (too much BBC news output shares in this)

At least you didn't also include the truly special topping of 'you don't have to watch it' as some others have rather missed the point in trying.

Gaurdian - BBC says sorry for prank phone calls - 'Sorry', 'Made love to/had sex with with your granddaughter' (BBC)... repeat a lie often enough...

Gaurdian - Complaints to BBC over Russell Brand phone prank top 1,500 - The BBC also said it would "review how this came about"... and....

Guardian - Russell Brand highlights Mail Hitler links in apology to Fawlty Towers star - And I'm suing the Vatican for making my great, great... granddad a Roman comfort boy. Keep on digging...

Meanwhile some are advocating the issue should be dropped as it only was stirred up by the Daily Mail, which evidently is a news medium whose objective news (at least) should not count, and as some time has now passed until most 'heard' about it.

Hey, I'm up for not counting anything dodgy I do if those who come after me only hear about it 3rd hand (say, from Capita) or later on... sounds like an advocacy for bringing in Judge Dredd mind, and that seldom ends well.

Hilarious how some defenders of 'liberty' can get pretty selective when they choose.

Indy - Leading article: Bad manners -

Indy - Terence Blacker: When did bullying become acceptable? -

Pretty much everything becomes 'acceptable' when 'unacceptable' (as used by a certain national broadcaster about its employees' behaviour as, er, in this case) ceases to have any meaning, along with many other 'compensatory' phrases used in the current politico-media infirmament: "review how this came about", "sorry", 'looked into'.

Thus the public sees too many reap the rewards of responsibility without any consequent penalties of accountability.

Remind me, what DO you have to do at Aunty to find anything, as such, actually happens to stop it happening again?

Usually I go to the top, and if that fails the shareholders. But as everything about this £3.5B entity is as unique as the way it is funded, I guess I'd best just reflect on how well the politico-media establishment is serving this cutting-edge, world-leading country. Oh.

I note a new twist. I had assumed the call was invited if not welcome. Handing over the mobile number... data protection breach by the BBC... again?

SKY - Spotlight On Pair's Prank Calls - and on tabloid TV, too

Spectator - What public service does Russell Brand's show perform?

Telegraph - Jonathan Ross: seeing him get fired would cheer us all up
I rather fear that some in gold-plated, carreerist jobs might not view now as the best time for experiments on having to pay market rates for 'talent'.

Telegraph - Jonathan Ross: time to break up the chummy cabal
Is it actually possible for there to be any tangible manifestation of accountability in public service these days? I have seen so little evidence in the last decade or more (hmnn.. coincidence?) that maybe I should get in while the going's still mighty good. Now, if I joined the BBC but then got busted for not paying my licence fee would I basically be on permanent paid leave... 'til the pension kicked in. Sweeeeet!
No way to run a country, mind.

Spectator - Public Revulsion Engulfs The BBC

Gaurdian - Our idiotic, coarse Auntie

Newsnight - A bit quiet on the Aunty-front, today? No matters of domestic or non-US international interest that might be deemed 'sparkling'?

Daily Mail - An apology from the BBC for these two isn't enough, says the former chairman of the Commons' media watchdog -

Daily Mail - Ofcom probe into scandal of Ross and Brand's 'prank' call as pressure grows for them to be sacked despite apologies - What a rag. Why are they controlling the agenda?

Gaurdian - Media Monkey special: the fallout from Ross and Brand's prank calls - that's 'prank'

Times - Brand and Ross: the final insult? - A poll. At time of posting 92% reckon the BBC has lost the plot. Those darn Times readers! As well. Must be the way they asked the question.

Gaurdian - Should Brand and Ross be fired? - Bloody Daily M... er Gaurdian readers!

You know, I am not sure the 'You....Daily Mail reader' riposte is working quite how it used to.

Best move on to 'Well, if you don't like it you don't have to pay... er.. watch it'.

And if that doesn't play, there's the always interesting Judge Dreddesque approach, which is kinda cute for those of a more 'liberal' bent: 'Only those who were present and saw/heard it then and there can report, comment or subsequently have an opinion'.

Toys may then be thrown out of pram as desired.

Gaurdian - Chinese 'journalists' seek pay-offs -

Gaurdian - Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand think everyone wants them. Where do they get their confidence?

'Which aspect of £6m (upper limit for one, I know) per annum, perked and paid jetset media lifestyle first attracted you to the foppish Messrs. Ross and/or Bland, Ms. Noughties empowered executive, and the blokes who hang with you in case 'the ones' eyes are not immediately caught by your charms?'

Or something like that. Maybe women just like men who make 'em laugh, eh?

Newsnight - Haul 'em up - '...serious about getting to the bottom of the Jonathan Ross/Russell Brand affair..'

I'm as interested in good comedy as I am in derailed national broadcasting standards, so kudos to you... kudos!

Newsnight - By way of a summary so far..

As many here inhabit what I think is called 'the bubble', it is good to note that, at last, something has stirred in Aunty's bowels enough to realise that 'events' are unfolding closer to home.

And if not, heaven forfend, to address, at least to acknowledge.

However, I am saddened to note an attempt at being, here at least (I'm sure the show will be a beacon of balance) how to say... a tad 'optimistic'. I do think more than one paper has by now called for the tousled mane to be offered up. Even that rabid bastion of right-wing demagogery, the Grauniad, has been... unimpressed... and for a few days, too.

Aunty's PR firefighting loins have again been girded and acceptably (ah, that word) sincere...ish platitudes issued, if only when prodded. I even hear that things 'will be looked into', which is really something.

Now, who could that 'one paper' be?

But you know, I am not sure the 'You....Daily Mail reader!' riposte is working quite how it used to. Some of us are not. But still... concerned.

Best move on to 'Well, if you don't like it you don't have to pay... er.. watch it'. Oh.

Another angle, and it has been interesting watching some in the liberal media tie themselves in knots over this, is essentially erring on a relative's lifestyle choice to justify actions elsewhere. If one decides, in its defence of the BBC and its own, that he was 'asking for it' because well, she was too, the vixen, then the fallout with the sisterhood will be special indeed.

And if that doesn't play, there's the always interesting Judge Dreddesque approach, which is kinda cute for those of a more 'liberal' bent: 'Only those who were present and saw/heard it then and there can report, comment or subsequently have an opinion'. All two of you. Good luck with that. Will be a short programme in future on this basis..

Toys may be thrown out of pram as desired.

Is it actually possible for there to be any tangible manifestation of accountability in public service these days? I have seen so little evidence in the last decade or more (hmnn.. coincidence?) that maybe I should get in while the going's still mighty good. Now, if I joined the BBC but then got busted for not paying my licence fee would I basically be on permanent paid leave... 'til the pension kicked in.

Sweeeeet!

No way to run a country, mind.

HIGNFY and Mock the Week should be fun. Unless 'the word' goes out. Mind you, between senior management and some central offices doing the hokey-cokey as various staff luvvies and others implode elsewhere there may not be many left who are allowed on!

If only they had done it to Mrs. Palin, eh?

Normal service would have carried on serenely, no doubt.

Looking forward to a great show!

BBC - Timeline: Russell Brand prank calls - Just heard it called a 'stunt' on Breakfast TV

Newsnight -

Just woke up to Breakfast news about this... er... 'stunt'. Who sent out that memo? Maybe the Russians and Georgians were having a 'spat'? (See what happens when you view events though different lenses coloured to suit?)

I think there may be more, and its not going to be good, to come. Mr. Brown does not emerge from his bunker into the court of public opinion without being pretty sure which way the wind is blowing.

But just how 'acceptably unacceptable' his 'outrage' translates into, and what actually ends up being done, remains to be seen.

Not that we really were to find out from the story aired..

Our loyal host reads out the above... carefully worded and still 'optimistic' post... some four hours later on despite the reality of the situation across the media infirmament being perhaps a tad more than suggested?

And then we come to the show, which itself was an insight into editorial decisions.

First up, we get no senior BBC figure to comment, which was at least treated as political no shows in such circumstances are. Evidently the budget and hence staff cuts have also cut a swathe though the top talent floors, too. Maybe they are all in the US to report on the last few days there?

So we get a Newsnight twofer. Interesting the age divide. An older person not exactly supportive and a hip youngster who can't see the problem or what the fuss is all about (who ARE all these comedians I have never heard of on-call to the BBC when an edgy' opinion is needed? Though I thought he perhaps wisely, and I presume intentionally, left the humour out, and was bang on with the pols 'coming out' as they scent an opportunity to strut with little consequence).

Then, surprise, two (count them, two, split 50:50 on the issue; so on this basis I can't see the fuss either) more twofer vox pops. Again, one more mature gentleman and a younger supporter. No ladies available, I guess, though perhaps their views on being seen as fodder for our new-age comedic talents could not be aired, at least on TV after 11pm.

As to the 'points' about complaints; to any familiar with it there is no point to BBC Complaints. So why bother using this 'service"? That 10,000 have popped up above the water line suggests an iceberg awaits the good ship BBC, especially as the way this whole event is still being 'handled' by the now discredited, isolationist, horse-bolted cookie-cutter mentality that is distracting, too often, the BBC from doing what it does well (or colouring almost anything done with a big question mark. I don't bother with any US coverage here): "It didn't happen. If it did we think it was fine. If it wasn't then we apologise... and will investigate. And then nothing will happen beause, really what can anyone do?'

Good luck with that.

ps:

Well, I guess there is some logic to those using a Newsnight blog to complain about those referring to a story Newsnight eventually sees fit to cover. At least in their minds.

The latest 'wheeze' seems to be to try and claim it's trivial and we should move on. I tend to agree on the former, but do not that the public is kept right in many 'trivial' mires when it suits the agendas of others who control the studio sliders.

BBC - 'Shouldn't be too quick to condemn'

To quote another: Speaking on BBC Radio 4's World at One, comedian Alexander Armstrong defended them saying people "shouldn't be too quick to condemn them" for comments made "in the heat of the moment" that were not intentional.

Armstrong is then obliged to eat his words when he is informed that it was a pre-recorded program, not something done "in the heat of the moment".

Words such as hole, dig, stop come to mind...

Another interesting notion on accountability. I can see how the 'heat of the moment' in a studio can excite. Will this argument then apply in mitigation for some circumstances that may even be thought 'more heated'?

BBC Breakfast -

I'm sure if you read out enough 'storm in a teacup' messages, you'll be able to suggest the public is split on the issue.

Amazing how what does or does not get selected for airing can affect the way things are perceived.

And today's BBC News output.

Telegraph - Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand: Gordon Brown demands action from BBC

Telegraph - The BBC is a chav channel, so why should we pay a licence fee for dross?

I'd just be happy to have some hope that what I am forced to pay for could include some news that hasn't been enhanced for emerging truths.

Now that the BBC has belatedly acknowledged that there might be a story they need to cover, if not address, I am watching the Breakfast News.

I'm sure if you read out enough 'storm in a teacup' messages, you'll be able to suggest the public is split on the issue.

Amazing how what does or does not get selected for airing can affect the way things are perceived.

And today's BBC News output.

But if Dear Leader is out of his bunker but not onside, I'd say he has caught whiff of a pong that is emanating from and heading in a direction that suggest Aunty is not out of the woods yet.

Mind you, how acceptable or appropriate any pronouncement is in these days of effective action at every turn in civil service, I am not holding my breath.

Telegraph - Gordon Brown intervenes in Rossgate. Reaction of stock markets unclear - I poster shares a photo, which explains all..

I am sure she was gagging for it, heh, heh, Beavis?

Like I have mentioned before, some in the liberal sisterhood might have a wee issue with this line of justification.

Now, who can I have fun with, consequence-free, based on no more than who they are related to?

BBC Breakfast News - after a guest opinion...

Well, I just heard it live on BBC Breakfast from a fantastic counter-argument, washed (we who disagree with such as him are not... apparently), selection of media bubble humanity... Will.

Brilliant choice!

Now I am not, as he demanded, 'getting over it' and complaining to the BBC's pointless Complaints system about this choice of defence interviewee and the 'interviewers' abilities in dealing with his specious arguments, and reading out others that were almost as offensive. This is all OK because the grand-daughter looks dodgy?

BBC... when in a hole... stop digging!

Plus the notion...you can only have a problem or opinion with what is broadcast if you hear/see it live and then complain then... through channels???? That will make for a short 'news' channel based on finding and sharing material that is dated.

Indy - PM condemns Brand's radio 'prank'
Indy - Data protection breaches affect millions of lives
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/data-protection-breaches-affect-millions-of-lives-976911.html
'the true scale of the misuse of personal information held by the state and private business'
'Cases include the loss or misuse of sensitive information'

Telegraph - Isn't it time to grow up?

Much more important issues..

But I guess it's OK if it is 'funny', a relative is 'racy', 'no one was there to hear it initially'....

That's the problem with standards; the more you double 'em up, the less effect those you might still wish to promote or enforce have any value.

Indy - A game of pass the buck at the BBC

Indy - The real questions that the BBC needs to answer

Indy - Janet Street-Porter: Men like Russell Brand thrive in the macho culture of the airwaves

Telegraph - Gordon Brown could learn about bandwagons from Tony Blair

Gaurdian - BBC on defensive and Ofcom steps in as 10,000 complain about Brand and Ross

Gaurdian - Has the BBC done enough by suspending Ross and Brand?

Gaurdian - Daily Mail leads Middle England against Ross, Brand and the BBC

Yup, it's the Mail wot dun it. Bang to rights. No other issues here... move along.

'Course, the precedent being advocated might boomerang when more forgiving media and its supporters want to a tackle an issue close to their hearts... Oh, let's say, women 'inviting assault' by dressing suggestively and/or getting bladdered. Once you double up the standards you divide any value and hence impact they may have.

See Aunty, when you are becoming the story more and more than just reporting upon it.... there's a problem. Especially when you maintain a steady flow of ammo to your critics.

Speaking of whom, I seem to recall reading recently that it was 'bad form' to take ones professional colleagues to task. Ah, the falling of standards. I blame letting all those non-journalistic blogs have their say, as it was all just fine before. Evidently.

Gaurdian - The funny business of causing offence - A lot of folk are either blind, or idiots, judging the foundations of some arguments presented.

Telegraph - Wimpish Tories must commit to scrapping the BBC licence fee

Telegraph - BBC boss condemned Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross two weeks ago

From a poster on a blog: BBC News Forums

"The first two rules for the BBC Messageboards state:
Do not post messages which are racist, sexist, homophobic, sexually explicit or abusive
Do not use swear words or other language likely to offend"
one rule for us...

Newsnight - Enough is enough, let's draw a line and move on!

WE... well, I, think so (can't speak for all, though it seems many media claim, or are claimed to).

Mind you, there is some irony in clogging a blog post about a topic with endless demands to stop talking about it.

Small suggestion to those 'offended' by a discussion thread (tip: it's flagged by the original poster at the top. Their fault perhaps for not breaking out other, I agree, equally and even more important issues to some), and it's one used, if not very effectively to those who do think it still an issue of value enough to discuss: 'if you don't like it...'.

In the absence of any other argument, I look forward to crushing future posters whose views may not gel with mine by using a selectively selected democratic pejorative stat of choice (6 to 1... Six!): 'Ooooh, you, you licence-fee funded, mob rule Radio 1 listener!'.

Way to bind a country, Aunty!

Newsnight - More Lib Dim input

I just had a bit more from the Lib Dems, who continue not to wish to make political capital out of this by issuing endless press releases on the 'affair/prank/jape/...:

'BBC must be allowed to take risks - Foster

Commenting on the resignation of the controller of BBC Radio 2, Lesley Douglas, over the prank calls involving presenters Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross, Liberal Democrat Shadow Culture, Media and Sport Secretary, Don Foster said:

“Many people were offended by the antics of Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross who have both been dealt with appropriately. But for this to lead to the loss of one of the BBC’s most talented producers is hugely disappointing.

“Lesley Douglas has made an enormous contribution to British radio and we have still seen no evidence that she was responsible for the failings that led to the show being broadcast.

“This resignation seems to have more to do with satisfying the media feeding frenzy than in working out what went wrong and ensuring it doesn’t happen again.

“The BBC has the impossible task of trying to appeal to all parts of the British audience. We should all think long and hard about what will happen to many of the wonderfully innovate BBC programmes, which many of us take for granted, if producers are no longer prepared to take risks.” '

I must say in this 'job secure no matter what' public service times I am having trouble understanding the logic of this, other than to somehow make a dubious point about how tabloids operate. Maybe the Lib Dems have been on the wrong end more often than the right (apologies, if insincere, for that line)?

While I do think the bigger issue was the executive market rate bonus talent that patently did not learn lessons after the last one and will doubtless forget their next publicly-funded course within a few months, but if this lady was nowt to do with it all, why the sword fall? Made, and I presume quickly accepted?

The Lib Dems are in danger of seeming, to me at least, that they can't tell the difference between not taking risks and not doing something plain wrong... over and over...

Ch 4 - A letter

RE: The complaintometer now apparently way past 30,000 for a piece of broadcasting which elicited precisely two, yet two, complaints at the time.

Am I right in thinking I might expect a visit from the police if a person makes one, that's just one complaint against something I may or may not have said to them?

In the new edgy, multi-culti UK of today that all rather depends on who I am, who they are and what I said, I guess.

One for Fact Checker , perhaps?

Yours faithfully,
Not a Daily Mail reader. And on this basis not a very impressed Ch 4 viewer now, either.

Telegraph - Ross and Brand: the generational divide

Here's a novelty. In a sea of subjective tripe posing as professional journalism from both extremes (all the BBC does is wrong, QED vs. All my mates in the BBC are sad, so you are all Daily Mail readers), I actually felt reading this a professional had gone out with an open mind, no agenda, talked to a few folk and written an objective story.

Hard to credit, really.

Gaurdian - Killed by the radio star

Whilst this comment in reply is not substantiated, it resonates, too:

"Brand was Lesley's Pet project and also her achilles heal. He was allowed to do what he wanted and whenever a producer tried to edit anything he did he went running to Lesley and had them fired from his show. Eventually, according to Paul, there was in effect no management inbetween Brand and Lesley - he had been through 6 producers, so there was no one else to sack."

I guess it's not the fact of sacking, it's who sacks who and when that matters (hint: do nothing wrong and be junior to a 'star'... OK, toast. Be a 'star' and do a lot wrong.... 'Oh, the inhumanity!' Very egalitarian). Meanwhile...

Gaurdian - Paul Gambaccini in tirade against hiring of 'timebomb' Russell Brand .

I do wonder if the Daily Mail would have called it a... 'tirade'. A bit emotive for them, eh?

Gotta love these 'quality' paper standards of reporting and editorial, eh?

Telegraph - Shock treatment: if anything goes, does anyone care? - my tactless comment on the image used has been noted at least. By why is such faery carried out? It can only reflect poorly on the rest of the story, no matter how valid it may be.

Telegraph - BBC broadcasts obscenity about the Queen, but Mark Thompson has no comment

You know, I (can't speak for the rest, much as some like collective terms) only just heard Sarah Palin might have said some stuff a while ago.

But it's OK, Alex Spillius won't be sharing. Maybe she isn't in the right pay grade. Or he's on board with the new reporting 'rule'

Monkey got too many standards and only use those they like?

Gaurdian - The Brand-Ross affair is a chance for the BBC to end the culture of cruelty that permeates its comedy

Indy - Another bad day at the BBC

I notice a panel at the top:

ADE EDMONDSON
Don’t chuck out "edgy" comedy

Baby and bath water, indeed. Going to read it now.

But in case there is no comment function, who the [pop in trendy expletive] is suggesting this, well, other than some tabs offered up a very wounded goat (or is that BOAT - Broadcaster Of All Talents?) and defended so far by a bunch of sad playground jabs from the kids?

This was, and never will be about 'edgy'. To me at least, as a non-Daily Mail reader who did and does not respond well to pathetic taunts based on some trendy notion of what is 'bad'.

It's about a total loss of plot on tangibles, which have been clear to me from the off, no matter how the chatterati have tried to paint it.

Indy - Is that a joke in bad taste? You'd better watch out...

I came to this hoping to read an objective, rationale appeal not to throw the baby (of 'edgy' humour) out with the bathwater (line-crossing, indefensible abuse).

Nope. Another media bubble luvvie getting down wiv' the yoof, trying to equate two very different things and coming up with a totally mis-directed 'industry' defence that tries to drag in all their prejudices just as much.

Gaurdian - Killed by the radio star - Interesting
"Brand was Lesley's Pet project and also her achilles heal. He was allowed to do what he wanted and whenever a producer tried to edit anything he did he went running to Lesley and had them fired from his show. Eventually, according to Paul, there was in effect no management inbetween Brand and Lesley - he had been through 6 producers, so there was no one else to sack."

Gaurdian - Paul Gambaccini in tirade against hiring of 'timebomb' Russell Brand - Very interesting.

Telegraph - Jonathan Ross's theatre of cruelty must be stopped with BBC licence fee boycott

BBBC - Brand/Ross - "Lesley Douglas knew"

Times - The BBC's leadership went AWOL this week - selective memory public self-service at its best

Telegraph - BBC arrogance stretches far beyond Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross

Indy - Virgin Atlantic sacks 13 staff for calling its flyers 'chavs' - I very much doubt it was the main reason, but a funny old world, eh? They could always hire John Prescott.

Brand Republic - Virgin Atlantic fires 13 staff over Facebook remarks

Gaurdian - To complain about Jonathan Ross, press one

Sheep...

Presumably including the six producers whose careers did not continue as planned, for the 'crime' of trying to do their jobs, because Mr. Brand's boss was seduced by his 'edgy' requirements and demands.

To get yet more rather classic examples of the luvvie set's plethora of standards, click, well, here's a good start.

Gaurdian - BBC finally gets it right on the Brand-Ross phone prank row - Or... does it?

Gaurdain - By suspending Ross and Brand, BBC boss Mark Thompson reveals himself a coward

News of the World - WOSS A WASTE - some numbers worth noting

Telegraph - Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand perfectly presented the Tory case against the BBC

Gaurdian - Oh, Wossy, you lost the plot long, long ago

Times - BBC is told to starve its fat cats

Gaurdian - Want a rush of empowerment? Join the angry idiots registering their disgust with Ofcom

Superb.

A piece of truly topical (well... if several days later), insightful, fresh-aspected, non-hypocritical, empathetic, trite piece of self-centred luvvie wagon-circling on par with Ade Edmonson's in the Indy.

And not in a good way.

Your contract with the BBC is safe.

Gaurdian - The holiday curse

Never had a deputy as such as I ran my agency with a partner. And on a bit less than £3B+ and tens of thousands of staff and a bevvy of well-bonussed 'senior execs'.

We had this weird ritual each year we he booked his holidays and I booked mine to fall at different times so one of the guys responsible, and accountable, was always in charge and on hand.

We also, and here's the weird one, went through the applications from our staff on the same basis, even allowing a contingency on coverage for such as sickness.

Seemed to work. But then again maybe we did not know what multi-hundred thousand 'market-rate talents' and their only slightly less-well remunerated deputies do. Which is why it is probably still explicable as why and how they both scooted off abroad to be with the fam at half-term... as you do.

Reuters - China sacks drunk official outed on Internet - Bloody Daily Mail readers

Gaurdian - Why the BBC must not cut its comedy balls off in the wake of Sachsgate

As good a bit of 'so last week', rehashed, tired cliche spilt-milk in the 'us' vs. 'them' attempted rabble-rousing category as I've seen here in, oh, hours.

Even got the Daily Mail in there as a zinger at the end. The cutting edge, 'now' scripts from the stable must be choice (this piece certainly explains a lot of BBC output). Even if the door has closed.

And 'you' are? I just ask because the lack of a byline makes me suspect the link is just to boost the off-site blog stats and I ain't buying.

Keeping the equine thing going, I can live with keeping such commentary live if there is added value, but this horse is flogged, potted and tube of UHU already.

Gaurdian - Question: What have John Sergeant and the Ross/Brand debacle got in common?

Seems the bigger question is what the author and those he would seek to exoneraet have in common.

Didn't/don't watch either, which of course by the new law of multiple standards prevailing means I should not be allowed to comment, I guess. At least, not here.

This is why I like the Guardian.... the sheer diversity of opinion but often near total lack of irony, usually from the lead poster (btw, ta some, for an interesting 'heads up' on the possible motivations of this latest objective commentator).

Still one can always appreciate it when the wrong kind of people make the wrong kind of decision and/or vote the wrong way, and irritate those who (claim to) know better. Like some political recent election results, you can just see some luvvie from the media establishment itching to find a way to say the proles are too stupid to be allowed to vote and should leave it all up to those 'in the know'.

Might even be worth 10p to venture over to SCD in future and mess with a few more from the self-appointed 'elite' a bit. That's assuming the votes get counted properly and I am not wasting my money on something esle that will be 'looked into' and 'learned from'... and then ignored in favour of an emerging truth.

So on the result, if not the reasons, we can at least agree. Though if Mr.S and partner actually 'won', I suspect the shrieks of outrage would be heard all round London. And that would be a real result.

ps; Ta all round to those who have so far participated in this discussion at least without throwing a hissy fit that it is still going on. So long as some in the Guardian hierarchy keep dredging it up, especially with nothing new to add (if with a crude attempt at a 'twist', as in this case), the famous BBC 'line' will be hard to draw I'd hazard, and having the last word even less likely if it's on a blog post.

Gaurdian - Truckers put the brakes on moral outrage over Clarkson comments - It's all a bit shockingly sensible. Not too mention ever so not slightly different. But don't let that get in the way.

Gaurdian - Richard Littlejohn: I promise to be gentle

Well, it has sort of got us off the sooo last week actual 'prank' issue.

However, I might just have to join those from the 'storm in a teacup/draw a line/let's move on' brigade who have, with some justification, pointed out that there is some other stuff going on that might be a smidge more important.

But this is more fun, if also tragic.

First Mr. Hill in a spat with Andrew Gilligan. Now this. Has the Guardian issued a 'reporter' to every other medium or person it doesn't like and demanded at least a 'You stink... So muhr' schoolyard shove per day? You could always try 'but he started it,' but that would sort of prove my point.

Like I care who said what to who about whom. Or not. You are not the story, dears. And if you can't find a proper one, trying to make one about yourselves is not... credible. You are not that interesting.

I'll play as it's my teabreak, but don't expect me to take much of it seriously. Or this paper for much longer.

Times - The Jonathan Ross-Russell Brand affair stripped bare - “What no one has commented on so far,” says Tony Ballard, of Harbottle & Lewis, “is that there is a rather obscure part of the Communications Act 2003 that prohibits people from using the telephone to send offensive messages — whether they are for broadcast or not.” Er... I think that was Day 1.

Telegraph - BBC chiefs deploy classic cliches to evade Sachsgate responsibility

Which statement would get you bounced, and which would not, from our national broadcaster quicker than you can say 'but that's different; we don't like this standard, so here's another we rigg... er... made up earlier'

a) 'Ah did not have membership relations with that minority party'

b) 'All procedures were carried out correctly, which makes it of note, and regrettable, but irrelevant that a child still died'.

Telegraph - The BBC was too scared to sack Jonathan Ross, so the obscenity goes on