Geogina Baillies sell out to the sun

[ssummers]

www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1872523.ece

Doesnt this sort of stink of hypercritism? when she said I wont comment until I speak to my 'agent' - was what she meant - I could make some money out of this - I know if every time I speak I have The Sun logo above my head I will bask in the glory?

Isnt talking about how rubbish RB is in bed stooping to the very level that we are accusing RB of? Will RBs granfather not have to read this article and will they not be upset? Sachs has been very dignified about the whole inccident though it has to be said.

Agree with all recent posts. Good. Now I can go to bed.

Thanks, policy - will have a look.

aaargh Iorek how did it go tonight??

Havent read all 23 pages, but as I recall a DM reporter heard the show, thought there might be a bit of a story, but hung on a bit. 2 people complained. Andrew Sachs was supposedly not that bothered. The show was prerecorded and the "offending" item not edited out as "no-one was that bothered" then the DM journalist took it upon himself to be "outraged", then all of a sudden 30k people have complained. Now people have lost their jobs. For what?

I can't beleive there should be 23 pages of indignation and argument. I agree waht they did was a bit foolish and rude and they should have known better - but they apologised. Andrew seemed to have taken it on the chin originally. His family are probably now mortified by the attention this has been given.

Its all being discussed on bbc1 now on This Week. Disagree with what that guy said about things like this not happening in America and other countries. What a load of tosh! They are even worse over there . . remember the Janet Jackson debacle?!

Was last night. Went really well, thanks. Was completely worth doing after all.

thomcat, I understand that the BBC couldn't make announcements of culpability on the hop, but I don't understand why someone pretty senior didn't come out on the day the Mail published the story and say 'bloody hell, this shouldn't have been broadcast, we'll get to the bottom of it as quickly as wel can'.

Actually, I think I do know why it didn't say that. It was hoping that the story would die a quiet death.

Sorry that was hijack response to policy.

Night all

Hurrah!

The BBC seemed a parody of itself, eventually announcing they would mount an investigation into who had authority and was responsible.

In any functional organisation that would have been crystal clear, apologies etc could have been issued promptly and sincerely. That they were not really showed contempt for the general public, who mostly found those calls obscene.

Agree the BBC has handled this really badly yet again and worry that they won't get many more chances to fuck up at this rate.

Upwind, - the "general public mostly found these calls obscene" !!!! Who is this "general public"? The people who generally would listen to a Russel Brand show? People who knowing who/what is Russell Brand expect a certain type of "humour"? TWO people complained at the time. It's not like he appeared on News at Ten and said he'd fucked the Queen or something. This whole thing has been blown totally out of proportion by the media.

Portofino - the general public who fund the BBC

Yes the general public who fund the bbc who didn't listen to the broadcast, or if they did weren't actually that bothered at the time.
I didn't hear it as I don't listen to Radio 2 (though I might start now), I wouldn't now listen to the broadcast and call the beeb to complain about it because I'd read about the uproar in the papers.

Who cares if they heard it at the time? Why on earth does that make the slightest difference? It was vile. A really offensive stunt by a pair of overpaid buffoons who had not managed to move with the times.

The public were able to hear the podcast or watch it on youtube. I mostly listen to radio by podcast while I work. But the BBC should have responded promptly to Andrew Sachs' complaint instead of ignoring it. They shouldn't have needed to wait for this media storm.

It's a shame that Lesley wotserface had to resign. But to blame the Daily Mail for her resignation, rather than the incompetence of the BBC in handling this story, is ridiculous.

I hate the Daily Mail and am up for blaming it for everything I reasonably can, but you cannot make it responsible for the fact that the BBC's press office is inept. As others have said, the story could have been killed instantly with proper, genuine apologies (not piss taking arrogant fingers crossed behind my back ones) and a proper rap on the knuckles.

Oh and FGS am extremely disappointed to have 2 grown men, one of whom is old enough to be a grandfather, referred to as "boys". Call me either an unreconstructed hairy legged feminist or Doris Day, but I kind of think by the time you're in your 40's, being Peter Pan is deeply repulsive and not at all edgy and hilarious.

I can hardly bear to post on here again, but the 2 original complaints were about excessive swearing rather than the immaturity and inappropriateness of the calls. So no-one actually complained at the time.

I suspect if 30000 people who never usually watched Little Britain were suddenly driven to watch it via a DM crusade there'd be a large number of complaints as well.

I wish I could whip up this number of people to complain about lack of childcare/after-school/holiday care for disabled children. That could actually have a positive effect on people's lives.

I couldn't agree more jimjams, on all those points.

I had to laugh earlier in the week when they were interviewing "the public" about this on BBC news 24. They picked a group of elderly ladies coming out of the studio audience for another programme. I mean, what did they expect them to say? It was just ludicrous!

The amount of coverage this has received defies belief. Where on earth are people's priorities?

JimJams, JR's 18 million salary would provide rather a lot of childcare/after-school/holiday care for disabled children - and I believe it would better be spent that way. There are lots of people who would do his job well for a fraction of that salary. The row is really about the BBC - its arrogant and slow handling of the complaints, especially the one from Andrew Sachs himself, and its spending of massive amounts of public money on content that the public find offensive. That RB's self-selecting audience did not immediately complain says more about them than anything else and suggests that his career and popularity won't have been harmed.

It seems to be taken for granted that being "edgy" is a worthy end in itself. If edgy means pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable, why would that always be a good thing? Would racist or homophobic content be described that way, or is it just misogyny and mocking disabilities that is so very daring? It seems to me that these days, comedy which is described as "edgy" is usually just mean-spirited. Those boundaries have already been pushed and pushed. That is why this has caused such a fuss, people have latched on to this one, badly-handled incident as an opportunity of expressing their frustration.

The right of reply or complaint is not restricted to those who consume a broadcast (or any other artefact) at the time of its initial performance, particularly in an age in which broadcasters encourage us to time-shift our viewing and listening.

If I pick up a copy of The Times (not my usual paper) on a bus and read something I find deeply offensive, I would be well within my rights to complain, and my complaint would not be dismissed because I'm not a regular reader.

I really don't understand why people keep making this argument, because it's irrelevant and nonsensical.

Now, should we decide what is and is not acceptable based purely on the volume of complaints? No, of course not. But those of you who think that this current incident is an example of confected or orchestrated outrage are plain wrong.

I agree that people have seized on this event as representing things they're not happy with.

I'm really pissed off that the BBC, along with the rest of the media, promotes the idea that racism is totally beyond the pale while sexism is OK really. And very disappointed that many intelligent feminists go along with this. And you can argue if you want to that JR is not a sexist slob (though you are wrong imo) but that people can't see anything wrong with this acceptance of sexism as being OK because women's humanity is less important than everyone else's, is really depressing.

Whilst watching BBC News 24 this morning, there was an interview with someone very high up at the bbc (not sure who he was as I missed the beginning of the interview.} The reporter seemed to be implying that people were still angry that Jonathan Ross had not been dismissed and that Lesley Douglas, who was very well thought of, had been.

With regards to Lesley Douglas, my feeling was that although someone not quite as high up as her would probably have been more to blame, she fell on her sword so to speak. Plus, its bigger news to get rid of her, than say, Nick the vicar's son who is the producer of the Russell Brand show. (Bet he will get a hard time anyway as people really seemed to like Lesley Douglas! Chris Evans anyone?!)

With regards to Jonathan Ross not being dismissed, my take on this was that its not actually in the best interest of the public to sack him. With the contract that he has with the bbc etc if they did dismiss him, he would actually have a pretty good case in court that it was the fault of other producers and Lesley Douglas who didn't get the show edited, and so therefore if he took them to court the BBC and the public would actually lose money. Is my take on this correct? Just wondering if anyone could clarify that because that is the way it sounded to me anyway.

For it to be a war with the Mail the BBC would have to be actively broadcasting in a way which criticises the Mail. They don't do that. I think the mail shows [[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1081927/LITTLEJOHN-Were-mad-hell-DONT-more.html here], with abolutely no subtlety, the anti-BBC agenda it follows.

Lesley Douglas has done what she always said she would, despite Brand making a valiant effort to take the shot.

I like very much what Mark Thompson said when asked to comment the ancient episode of Mock the Week which was repeated this week.

"The right thing to do is to read the entire transcript and watch the programme, and get a sense of what the programme is trying to do." what Thompsom means is 'please, please, please - idiot people don't seek this clip out on the internet and then make 30,000 complaints about something you don't even understand properly!

woops here