大象传媒

1. Brand has done the decent thing and gained respect and shown character by accepting full responsibility. It would be a career disaster if Ross also didn't 'accept responsibility'.

If Brand gained public respect by resigning Ross would lose it for not doing the same.

He doesn't need the money so why cling on? If he does the decent thing then there is a good chance in a couple of years he could come back. I hope for his sake he doesn't drag it out and try to cling on.

The rationale behind the bbc paying him so much is that he is wanted by other networks. So where is the problem? Why would the bbc want damaged goods that now will only serve as a constant reminder to the public that he refused to accept responsibility like Brand did?

it wouldn't be good for him or the bbc.

2.Debt. it would remove the pain only delay it. Are we getting a political 18 months to an election fix rather than an economic one?

I must say that this whole Ross/Brand affair has been blown massively out of proportion. However I have just read the transcripts of the messages and they are very inappropriate.

But what I want to know is if this prank call was made to a member of the publc (a la 'fonejacker') would the furore have been as big? I doubt it. So why is it worse because it happened to a celebrity?

SYMPTOMS

The Ross/Brand fiasco is no more 'off' than much of what passes for entertainment now. Unpleasantness rules, and it's OK. The 大象传媒 has lost any semblance of holding the line. This Media Mess joins the Money Mess (where no one was found to be holding the line) as another symptom, in a general orgy of Deadly Sins that is the Global Decline and Fall. Remember when it was cool to fret over global warming?

We need a hero.

FARCICAL PRUDENCE

I don't see any mention of J Gordon Brown giving the Fed permission to cut their rate. I thought he was world supremo in co-ordinated Rescunomics?

PARTY FAVOURS(#1)

Party politics means party first. Gain power at any cost; hold on to power at any cost.
Why would Obama have spent more than Macdonalds if he were, genuinely, more tasty and appealing than the alternative?
All 'fixes' now will be to 'sell' Labour and to sink the Tories at the next election. Allied to that will be pleasing the party funders; then showing off to the world. And finally, perhaps, the depressed, shivering, dispossessed in our own country might be grudgingly addressed.

SPOIL PARTY GAMES

A debacle can rise, a height can be unfathomed, an abusive phonecall is a sketch? My, what inventive language la Maitlis is prone to.

I ses Newsnight has succumed to the delusion that the Daily Mail is now running the country.
Thanks for the balanced panel discussion.

Re: Brand and Ross

Those arguing that this is "all out of proportion" should perhaps check themselves next time a politician is being hounded with a similar hue and cry. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

They keep stressing that the 大象传媒's role is to lead and innovate, and not be bland. In that case, should not the 大象传媒 perhaps lead the restoration of good manners and self-discipline?

Everyone yapping that "it was teo weeks ago and only two people complained at the time" surely misses the point!
It seems a strange sort of morality to me.

Because most people didn't listen to the programme doesn't makes it alright to make and broadcast obscene ILLEGAL telephone calls does it?

Based on that sort of logic Auchwitz was OK when no one knew about it!

10.50 p.m. Wed: John O'Farrell seems to think the fact only 2 people complained at the time of the broadcast means the subsequent reaction has been excessive. No, it means the underlying problem is far more serious. I do not know how many people heard the original broadcast but if only 2 complained it suggests many were trashy. That is the national problem; Chav Britannia. The 大象传媒 should not pander to those who find Brand and Ross amusing. The 大象传媒 should not allow people like O'Farrell to express opinions publicly.

Rob Slack

Discussion on Newsnight about Brand/Ross rather missed the point. It does not matter how many people complained when the program was first broadcast, and the issue is not whether comedy on 大象传媒 should be Bowdlerized.
The issue is that no one should harass and cause distress to an elderly individual, especially not for amusement. That behaviour is unacceptable, period.
A criminal prosecution, in this case, is not out of the question.

You don't have to be a Daily Mail reader to be concerned about what happens in the public space of broadcasting.
Humour is about pushing at the boundaries but has to have the boundaries in the first place. Without that there is no humour and the result is a slither towards depravity.
If we really believed that boundaries aren't necessary why do we waste resources on a police force or army? Why do we believe that children ought to have responsible parents?
The current problem over these two and what they conveyed is only one example from many and 大象传媒 is not the only sinner. The audience and other broadcsters bear some responsibility. Sharing shocking ideas between friends who understand where they're all 'coming from' is a different situation from splashing it over the widely varying public.

Wow was that really Newsnight I just watched??

The 大象传媒 brings in 3 people to basically support the organisation over the Brand / Ross disgrace (Sorry I just can't call it a prank!), where exactly was the balance in this piece??

Emily also brings up the Radio 1 blog (again apparently in support of the 大象传媒) but utterly fails to mention that the vast majority of the public comments in the blog are in fact totally in opposition to the blog writers position!

A large proportion of the 大象传媒 does need to take its collective head out of the sand (was going to say somewhere else!) and join the rest of us in the real world for a change!

Hi I'm a 45 year old man who is in the middle ground of all the 15-40 year olds who think Ross and Brand were just a bit over the top and that it's all been blown out of proportion and the 50-100+ age group who think they shuld be sent to the tower at least. Due to this maybe my thinking is a bit of both as I agree that they have both been sillyand it's been blown up by the media but at the same time they should be brought to book. So heres an idea why before Brand gave in and resigned didn't the 大象传媒 just tell the pair of them there would be a price to pay and tell the media that by friday all would be explained to the media. This would have given everyone the ability to asses the situation calmly and without sackings or resignations.

I believe that both men should hold their heads in shame and be made to publicly apologise on a special edition of newsnight or even a shortened version of Rosses show possibly with Mr Sachs on it. Then hit them with a massive fine, ( as footballers face when they act inapropriately), made payable to this years children in need. This allows for a dignified end due to the apology which also has to cover the fact that they fully explain that this kind of action has no place in our countries way of life and a substantial start to this years cildren in need celebration. It also helps the 大象传媒 who do not then have to loose two very talented, although very imature, people who enthrall millions with their shows.

Which brings me to the why of this situation and the why is so that we don't give into the minority in this situation as although 18000+ have complianed,which as a percentage of both mens audience is possible not even 1%, like many of the PC and liberal people who cause us all many problems in our day to day life they are trying to dictate how people express themselves and live their lives. Ross and Brand screwed up and owe Mr Sachs and his family big time but for gods sake can we stop worrying what the minority think and get back to enjoying life for the majority which if the spinless 大象传媒 bosses hadnt listened to this minority and done their jobs as management it probably would have led to Brand resigning. Brand and Ross hould apologising on the 大象传媒, children in need should be getting some of their pay and the idiot who allowed the show to go on air to get the sack as at the end they shouldn't have done what they did but it should never have gone on the air.

I even think Mr Sachs would agree based on what I have heared him say on TV tonight.

Anyway all the best and lets hope Ross doesn't resign but puts at least 6 months wages in the children in need kitty for being a pratt and if Mr Brand does the same then give him his job back and get them both to apologise on the 大象传媒.

The Happy Slapping 大象传媒

I have yet to see Newsnight, or anyone else, analyse why the Brand-Ross personal abuse act is found to be so offensive to so many people.

It is more than a 'prank'. It is about the personal and public humiliation and abuse of two innocent and named individuals for the purpose of titillating the public. The issue is not 'edgy', unfunny, offensive or even obscene commedy. The issue is the 大象传媒 making public victims of two innocent people for the purpose of entertaining others. It is more akin to such as voyerism, pornography or assault than merely a 'prank'.

I believe the practice of abusing or assaulting individuals and recording the actions on mobile phones, for the entertainment of others, and even for profit, is known as Happy Slapping and often constitutes a criminal offence. The 大象传媒 has engaged in Happy Slapping. The 大象传媒 has set an appalling example for our society.

Listening to John O鈥橣arrell tonight on Newsnight reminds us precisely of why the reaction to the Ross/Brand fiasco was so strong. O鈥橣arrell insisted that the 大象传媒鈥檚 reaction was dictated by a 鈥渕ob鈥� and hysteria whipped up by the 鈥淒aily Mail鈥� (horror of horrors). It is this total disdain by the likes of O鈥橣arrell for the majority of the population who pay for the 大象传媒 which people are so resentful of.
We even heard one of the interviewees say that Brand and Ross would be sorely missed because they are 鈥渂ig talents鈥� ! Big talents ? Come off it ! They are mediocrities who got lucky and who were able to dupe the gullible middle-aged producers at the 大象传媒 that they are 鈥渋n tune with youth culture鈥�.
I don鈥檛 know how old O鈥橣arrell is, but he is certainly no youth, and to hear him declaring himself to be on the same side as 鈥渃utting edge鈥� presenters sounded like nothing other than the desperation of the once-fashionable trying hopelessly to cling on to the last vestiges of their fast-fading cultural credibility. But why this obsession with youth ? Why this determination to despise 鈥渕iddle-England鈥� ? Why the assumption that those who prefer to watch Alan Titchmarsh (or, for that matter, Fawlty Towers) are somehow less worthwhile as human beings than those who want smut ? If there is a market for the so-called edgy, boundary-pushing 鈥渉umour鈥� of Brand and his ilk (I leave Ross out of this, as he is certainly old enough to know better, and has no talent other than an ability to speak as if he learned his English down in the sewer) then let its aficionados find it on the internet or on some third-rate digital station, not on the country鈥檚 flagship broadcaster.
How I wish it had been Jeremy rather than Emily who had been interviewing the self-satisfied O鈥橣arrell. Jeremy would have challenged and revealed the hollowness of O鈥橣arrell鈥檚 smugness.
Jan Ravens also had her little rant against the wicked Daily Mail, but made some reasonable points, as did the third interviewee, but if the 大象传媒 wants to understand why there was such a strong reaction to this relatively minor story, it need look no further than this interview, where the old, tired, self-serving metropolitan elite looked down their pompous little noses at the public; the public who pay their wages. We have been quietly seething for a long time at the swearing, the smut, the degeneracy and total unfunniness of much of the Corporation鈥檚 so-called 鈥渢alent鈥�. Ross and Brand, by transgressing so blatantly, have given us the opportunity at last to speak up with some chance of achieving a change in attitude. But we鈥檙e not cheering yet; the 大象传媒 has shown itself more than capable over the years of seeing-off challenges to its unaccountability, and I would not put money on these two, or their clones, being back on the airwaves in a few months. If there is no change, more folk will simply vote with their feet, eyes and ears, and give up on the idea of the licence fee altogether.

I see that the 大象传媒 doesn't bother to moderate comments during/straight after the programme. Why worry what the viewers think, anyway. Shame they didn't put so much effort into reviewing the words of Brand and Ross...

My personal views


大象传媒 Comedy

Should you not ask people if they want to be involved in a show before airing it ?
I understand you can broadcast anything if it's in the public interest to know , but I doubt this broadcast met this requirement.
I think Ross and Brand are being made scapegoats, it was the people who should have got Andrew Sachs permission to be used in this way and didn't , they are at fault.

Congo

Should we do anything ? , when we do we only get called Imperialists or we are only after their resources.
Does this ring any bells ?
News Night did not tell us what the AU thought ?

I say give the UN troops there 100 fighter bombers and some radio controllers for CAS.
Then allow the UN troops on the ground to declare any town or city as a UN safe area.
Protect the civilians and bomb any side that threatens the UN safe havens.
Then let the people who want to fight fight.

It's the Economy Stupid

How desperate are Labour ?
They are calling the 10p tax reversal, as a tax cut to help people now.
Have they even admitted their systems failed to control Credit demand ?
Have they even admitted their was a Credit Boom ?

Gawd help us !

Computer Climate Change

I worked in what we now call a data centre back in the 1980's , it was just at the change over from mainframes being mainly water cooled to being mainly air cooled.
I remember a IBM Engineer telling me a story about how some places used the mainframes water cooling to heat offices.
How green is that ?

We are going to see improvements in power usage in data centres , just as we have seen power reductions in laptops , the technology is trickling to other branches of the computer world.

I wonder what the carbon footprint is of laying thousands of miles of undersea fibre optic cable ?
Or
Even the carbon footprint of making the fibre optic cable in the first place ?

I think the argument for data centres moving to the north pole is a flawed one myself.

I think that is a very good idea of no. 14, drivingstevemac, that Ross and Brand should pay substantial sums to Children in Need - or a charity nominated by Andrew Sachs and/or his granddaughter. But for heaven's sake please let us hear no more about this sorry episode.

It is a step forward that the rebel leader have agreed to come to a cease fire. So many people have lost their lives recently in Congo and lots of women were raped and abused.

It is time that we reflect on ensuring that peace prevails in Congo after so long a war. Children in this country deserve a life of peace and not this which they are witnessing. The young people of Congo need to grow in a protective and enable environment and enjoy their inalienable rights as enshrined in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child.

These people have a future and they can make stars.

Sheriff Samsideen Phatey
Banjul, The Gambia

"Because most people didn't listen to the programme doesn't makes it alright to make and broadcast obscene ILLEGAL telephone calls does it?"

I think most of the people who didn't like Jerry Springer the Opera didn't see it either. I find it suspicious people can truthfully say they are offended by something, a week after broadcast without actually hearing the programme? Perhaps they grabbed the podcast before it got pulled?

On the subject of this comedy piece as a persona attack, well isn't there a double standard here? The media plays this game all the time, says things that are untrue or inflated and people get hurt. Brand and Rosses 'comedy' was essentially goofing around and obviously so. I think it was offensive, but the firestorm has not been proportional to the content - an apology would have done. Likewise, it seems to me Brand was employed to be the comedian who does outrageous and unexpected things. Surely the producer should have taken the fall? Still, it hasn't stopped papers like the Sun condemning Brand's comments of Sach's daughter, while at the same time publishing shots of her in a bodice.

I just have the feeling this whole situation has become another opportunity to slam the 大象传媒. Just because it's publicly funded, why should politicians weight in on production or content? It just seems to muddy the waters between politics and culture and confuses the chain of command within the beeb. They should have left it to an investigation and proper employer procedures.

Public institutions have to constantly justify why and how they spend their cash, which obviously gives private institutions something of an advantage. Private money of course can side-step this. What if Brand was say, a footballer? As a commodity, any comments he would made, or perhaps even violent actions would be overlooked because he was 'worth' something to shareholders.

In this case, what's at stake is the offence of listeners as well as Sachs and his daughter. Are we to expect everything we hear on Radio or watch on TV wont offend us? Are we to have a 大象传媒 that has to please everyone all the time, in which case we will be left with inane, bland programming?

I think a cultural studies writer once said people should use the off switch more often.

I for one want adult programming (including adult drama, like HBO) and find myself more offended by bad mainstream wallpaper TV. When I go to a gallery I want to be challenged by the art. When I go to a concert I want it to rock. When I watch a film I want to be taken somewhere surprising. When I see comedy I want to laugh somewhere that's uncomfortable, as a catharsis. I don't want 'amusing' comments from inane TV 'personalities' who look like bad X-factor rejects.

Brand has been one of those comedians that has pushed into areas that have been potentially offensive. That's not his only quality, but if you don't like him, it's usually not a good idea to listen to his show. This incident shouldn't be surprising from the man who dressed as Bin Laden on Sept 12th or introduced Kylie to his drug dealer. What is surprising is the producer/editor wasn't on the ball enough to call time before it went out.

If everyone hadn't joined this whooping great train of indignation, perhaps the whole thing could have been resolved. Now, it's more likely the 大象传媒 will be risk averse and as a result the content will suffer. Welcome to the future where everything is 'family' entertainment (woot woot). A kind of 'health and safety' for the viewer... but hey we wont be offended now.

Obama's 30 minutes Ad on TV was so significant to bring change that the debate was unable to make in terms of getting people to vote for change.

The Ad showed families telling their stories in relations to Barack's plan for America and her people.

Hay look, Obama is not perfect and will never be. We are beings and bound to make mistakes. But I can tell you this, Obama is the change needed. He will bring about tax cuts for middle class families, affordable health care and college education, concentrate on getting Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban, spend the billions on Iraq on the needs of the United States, know that he is sending sons of the nation to Afgahnistan, tap America's oil reserve and reduce America relying on oil form the middle east, create millions of jobs and involve Americans in their own democracy....

Vote for change not for fear on November 4th.

Sheriff Samsideen Phatey

Can anyone tell me if they have ever heard the following from a freeloading TV watching lay-about son or daughter?

"dad, can i help pay towards the TV licence"

yeah, nor have i....

remember 大象传媒 who your paymasters are!

I want to see a Newsnight where the
guests slag off the Guardian readership... on a regular basis.
A newspaper, that if you fold twice...fits into a cat litter tray...perrrfect.

O Farrel knows which way his bread is buttered; he's picked up many a handsome cheque from the 大象传媒, so any thoughts he may have on recent events are gonna be bent in favour of anything the 大象传媒 does. We've Got to keep tham fat cheques a commin in...eh.

So the Newsnight panel provided a balanced and objective view on the issue? I think not. Who excactly was arguing for their suspension / sacking? This is why the 大象传媒 and in particular Newsnight have lost credability amongst middle britian.

There are a number of points that spring to mind:

Firstly, Newsnight and its panel were struggling to understand the media storm surrounding the matter, Micheal Crick and Caroline Spellmen spring to mind? If you don't want to take it don't dish it out.

Secondly, According to the panel, the public are only allowed to complain if they listened to the show as it was aired! So if I listened to it on a podcast, or took a view on it after the event I am not allowed an opinion? Very strange.

Finally, what a great oportunity to get rid of two useless, crass and arogant indivisuals, don't waste it.

Hope it's OK still to have an opinion, much as some would wish things 'move along' when not to their personal taste.

But as it has raised been raised at the top by a main protagonist I'll take a chance.

Especially as we are in the realms of editorial objectivity.

So now we are in an era of 'defence by reason of excessive tabloid coverage'? Sod the issues... the wrong sort have taken an interest! Nicely 'them 'n us'.

After yesterday's great 'washed' (most of us are not if they don't agree with bearded chatterati, apparently) advocate on such as Breakfast News, I'm getting a bit fed up with the notion, as espoused by various no-name 'comedic spokesperson's' diversionary efforts that a) news can only be reacted to if you see it live and b) if you haven't you are in the thrall of the tabloids and have no brain if you hear about an event subsequently and develop a negative opinion of the protagonists.

Much as some might like to think that. Harold Shipman... Those tinkers at Nuremberg (I know it's 'different', but the principle is the same).

Careful what you wish for. The 'But that's different' caveat can often prove wanting, quickly. And some telling others that their thinking is only at the hands of others can often prove... 'counter-productive'. Especially when the presumption is that they should instead be thinking the 'right' way.

So we now have a bit of a mess. I'm not too concerned about Beavis and his mate (who actually has at last proven quite dignified) as they do have talent and will survive.

And as one who has said a few things in the studio that were not for broadcast I think what is meant to stay in the can stays in the can. But the kids will, I am sure, have plenty to get excited about their fallen hero now, and I'll agree with some.

However, my thoughts turn to a 25 year old producer who is currently staring at a glass of whiskey and a loaded Webley. While all his bosses seem to have acquired collective amnesia, locked themselves in the loo or pulled a sickie. Ah, unique market rate talent indeed.

Nice to know they are in charge of the rest of the news I co-fund, too.

No responsibility without accountability.

I was disappointed by the discussion of the Brand /Ross nonsense on three points. Firstly the panel all clearly felt that the problem was the licence payer not the 大象传媒 and Emily's introduction made it clear that she agreed. Sceondly IT appears that as soon as you reach the age of 21, your views on programming no longer matter and finally the 大象传媒 operates on the assumption that it must at all costs appeal tot he younger listener. Given that this demographic group doesn't understand the offence that Brand and Ross have created, it seems to me that they need a bit of help with good taste and manners something that Ross and Brand have spectacularly failed to do.
Well done Brand, I haven't listened to your programme, but if you thought that was funny, then you did the right thing by resigning. Come on Ross, now its your turn - your programmes used to be funny, but now you've run out of ideas, you've resorted to obscenity and offensiveness. And I can't help wondering what the editorial staff were thinking in letting this one out of the building. Given the discussion on newsnight, I think the 大象传媒 needs some leadership - out of the gutter. But since I am over 21, I don't suppose the 大象传媒 will care. Roll on privatisation , advertisers wouldn't stand for it!

if you want sanitized comedy like Terry and June go along with the Daily Mail and forget an organisation that gave you Fawlty Towers, Monty Python, Alf Garnett, Some Mothers, Ain;t half hot, etc., and play to the Daily Mail agenda. There were TWO complaints, TWO then the mail and the Whitehouse brigade and saw it as another marvellous opportunity to batter the 大象传媒 and now the craven submissions start rather similar to the craven falling on swords like Greg Dyke over Gilligan (WHICH EVERYONE ACCEPTS AS TRUE) so why the hysteria? They behaved abysmally but come on, isn't this all a bit over the top? A reprimand, sure but we have been fed lies and half-truths from the MOD and the foreign office for yonks, remember Hutton, and nobody says a dickie. Get real and have a sense of proportion.

Much of the debate over Ross's and Brand's transgression has historic resonance.

The call for stricter 'rules' and 'codes' has, at various points in the past, been seen as a second-best solution. In the 1960s and 1970s, for example, the 大象传媒 hoped that an "instilled ethos" might be sufficient to guide what, in the days of Hugh Greene and Charles Curran, might have been called "the programme-maker's conscience". When language offences occured, there was much internal (and external) anxiety about whether (a) staff turnover and Corporation expansion had been so great that a lack of continuity of experience in editorial guidance had arisen, with young and relatively inexperienced producers and managers promoted too quickly, so that the "instilled ethos" had been lost, and (b) that 大象传媒 staff had forgotten their own history. As always, language-and-taste anxieties are powerful lightning rods for latent worries about where the 大象传媒 is going, its loss of purpose, perceived arrogance, etc.

There are other interesting parallels with the past:

1. The difference between something uttered live and something pre-recorded or pre-scripted. Here, though, there have been two positions. The Managing Director of Radio in the late-1970s, Aubrey Singer, famously told staff in a memo that he didn't mind "these words" coming out in the heat of the moment, but he would "not have people sitting down and typing them out!" On the other hand, many dramatists and producers - especially those gathered in a huge set-piece symposium on bad language held in Broadcasting House in 1988 - pointed out that it was when 'strong language' was carefully planned and considered, and intended to be used with power and purpose, that it had its greatest claim to be allowed on air. It would be difficult to argue that Brand and Ross had this particular defence, of course.

2. The audience reaction to outbreaks of strong language was always (a) conditioned more by subsequent newspaper coverage than by the original transmission, and (b) very conditioned by age - with older listeners expressing very different levels of distress to younger listeners.

3. The issue almost always occurs where there is a tension between the need to serve largely older audiences and the desire to secure the attention or respect of younger ones. In 1975, Stop the Week on Radio 4 reviewed an autobiography that recounted a young girl's rape. The conversation then widened to discuss virginity, penis envy and other related matters. In the ensuing outcry, the Head of Current Affairs Magazine Programmes said that the idea had been to bring a Punch magazie style of witty conversation to Radio 4, and "if programmes were structured in such a way as to not raise the eyebrows of the most conservative listener we should quickly cease to be of service to the younger listeners..."

While it is difficult to defend Ross and Brand, and while the episode also no doubt reveals an inadequate grasp in some layers of the Corporation of what ought to be the 'instilled ethos', or what public service really means, one unfortunate outcome is the unconfined joy of those (the rightwing newspapers especially) who would dearly love to cut short the 大象传媒's efforts to attract younger listeners or reach a mass audience - and who will then turn round and accuse the 大象传媒 of 'losing touch' with the younger generation.

For those interested, I've written more about bad language on the radio in an article for Twentieth Century British History - downloadable as a PDF at:



David.

David Hendy,
University of Westminster.

IS IT ME?

There seems to be an absence of logical thought around this issue. Please invite a psychologist (Oliver James) onto Newsnight and lets look 'behind the arras' as Wogan would say.

i think people were shocked by the cruelty of the comments left on the answerphone. Further that this cruelty was deemed acceptable by 大象传媒 management.

Brand did the right thing. Ross should too.

the nations favourite sketch is 4 candles. That is the standard to rise to. How much cruelty is there in that?

Complete agree with ImusOnAir and offpiste_man. Who on earth thought to put John O Farrell on the panel and why was the interviewer (Emily Maitlis) so unchalleninging of the line he was trying to peddle? Of course he is going to defend the so-called 'edgy' comedy supposedly empiomised by Brand and Ross as his next 大象传媒 pay cheque is going to depend on this.

On Brand and Ross

In most organisations, when someone makes a mistake (knowingly or otherwise) the general rule is that you recognise it, apologise, and move on. Having said that, there are some mistakes that are so serious that more is needed than an apology. Employers impose sanctions. These impress upon the miscreant the seriousness of the offence, and send a signal to others that repeating the activity won't be tolerated.

The problem with much of the discussion on last night's programme is that it seemed to suggest that highly personal bullying through lewd and disgusting remarks just goes with the territory if you want to be a modern cutting edge comedian. Wrong. No one should be treated like a comedian's lab rat, available for experimentation to test the limits of humour.

Just been listening to matthew bannister's rather weak rationalisation of the Russell Brand furore: only two people complained on the night....ie what's all the fuss about, it's all been hyped by a newspaper......thankfully we do not moralise in a same vein when it comes to child abuse and other sordid crimes.... the individuals targetted by Russell & co. are hardly bosom pals who would wright the episode off as jolly good fun. Incidentally how would the urbane Russell react to a like live airing of a message regarding his own dear wife/ daughter and say a horse???