fucking government by daily mail

[Heathcliffscathy]

is all i have to say about the ross brand thing.

i'm disgusted really.

I agree HB.

The BBC still hasn't learned the most effective way of heading off the DM. But you cannot blame the DM for the BBC's ineffectiveness.

And all you lot who say you don't want comedy censored are probably lying. I bet you don't want Jim Davidson on TV and I bet you wouldn't have wanted Bernard Manning to spout his racist shit comedy on TV if he'd still been alive.

lol LBL.

Look, unless you believe in absolutely unfettered freedom of expression (including the right to incite violence etc), then you accept that there must be limits, yes?

So then we, as a culture, have to decide where these limits are. It's a rough-and-ready process and is, IMO, most robust when the public gets involved in large numbers.

In this instance, it seems to be to be fairly obvious that the majority of people who have listened to this incident think that it was beyond the undefined-yet-important limit.

The sky will not fall in. The Daily Mail will not become the supreme cultural arbiter. Things will mostly carry on as they did before, but with an extra awareness on the part of broadcasters than not everyone finds this sort of balls-out 'humour' acceptable, and that they are operating on the limits of public acceptance. This episode is the cultural equivalent of an economic 'correction'.

This is entirely as it should be. This is how a mature liberal democracy decides these sorts of issues.

It's ok. Don't worry.
All comdey shows will soon be stopped.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1081949/The-BBC-fills-living-rooms-smutty-degrading-obscenities.htm l

I think it's over the top, really over the top and totally agree it's people like the DM readers that have caused such a big deal over it.

The woman had the interview LINKED ON HER MYSPACE PAGE, which she removed later, claiming it had been hacked about the same time as oooh, when she realised just how well she could work it in her favour.

policywonk- the show has several hundred thousand listeners (can't remember the figures). After the broadcast 2 people complained- about excessive swearing, not the content of the phone calls. So I don't agree that the majority think it was beyond an undefined limit.

I suspect many of those who complained would have complained had they been directed to Little Britain, or Mock the Week, or whatever else it is they don't normally listen to.

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.

plenty of people have subsequently behaved jimjams. I think we've established the concept that one doesn't have to actually witness something to be offended by its existence.

so a section on how we we will deal with the daily mail would be a vot winner in the next manifesto round

behaved? complained.
I am MN-ing and child-wrangling simultaneously

Not denying one's right to listen to a broadcast/read the transcript after the fact and complain. However, there are clearly many, many people who listened to the show (or heard it later etc) and DIDN'T find it offensive.

Which is a lot of 'votes'. But it's difficult to make a big noise when your slogan is, 'Yeah, I'm not that bothered actually'. So they get drowned out....

I am noe defending JR AND RB, lots of this silly humour annoys me - I find Bo Selecta and Little Britain mysogonistic and offensive most of the time. I even find those Mock the Week jokes about the Queen distatseful, but I don't think that we can censor comedy as a whole- i get tthe impression that that is what the DM seems to be baying for.
I do agree with you that just because Conservatives/DM readers don't like something't mean you have to.
That only results in a throwing the baby out with the bathwater mentality

I'm still not sure quite WHAT was wrong with the incident:

OBM are you saying it was the invasion of privacy aspect? An invasion of the privacy of the woman porn-star? Do you think that if you sleep with a celebrity then you are entitled to have that kept secret? And I assume therefore that celebrities can sleep with people and that should be kept secret too? Is that the heart of the problem for you?

Dittany is saying it is the women-hating aspect... which is an aspect that I completely disagree with - I think Stephen Fry is worse on that front.

I don't see the comparison with inciting racial hatred, which is illegal in itself.

But Beastie, if you (and those who agree with you) can't be bothered to fire off a 20-word email to the BBC and copy it to Daily Mail/OFCOM, how is that anyone else's fault?

If there are millions of people who agree with you, why aren't you making your voices heard?

PW the BBC has said it is receiving six letters in its favour to ever one against

What I find strange is that 'art' is often much more offensive to me, yet it gets the tag that it's 'art' so it's fine. Why is comedy so different?
Weren't there many threads about the starving dog that was supposedly chained up a few months ago? The people complaining about this saying they were offended were in the minority.

MP - good! I've got no problem with that.

Agree HelloBeastie. Can't find RB's audience figures to work out how many listened to it at the time and independently decided not to be offended.

And next there'll be 30000 new listeners tuning into Mock the Week to be offended. Perhaps they'll do that a week after the event as well and insist that's taken off air too.

i am overcome with apathy

i was driving back from london about half ten on sunday night and there was a phone in on radio 5 about this....and by the time i had listened to a few disgusted shrieky phonbe calls i had gone throught the range iof emotions required

i am at the subsequent furore it is a case of media frenzy whips up public

"Do you think that if you sleep with a celebrity then you are entitled to have that kept secret?" erm... yes.

but I may be misunderstanding your point. I think Brand deserves that privacy too.

lolol zippi

I'm saying that technically it was the invasion of privacy thing (non-compliant) which meant that heads would roll, MP.

The reason I find it offensive (different argument) was a combination of the privacy thing and the misogynistic element of the content.

I find your mockery of the rights to privacy/dignity of a porn star deeply, deeply disturbing.

TBH I have been more disturbed by the responses of some to the incident, than I was by the incident itself.

I have to go now, but I'll be back later.

OK so RB's show has a regular audience base of 400 000 listeners. So approximately that number listened to it straight off without being influenced by the DM or their neighbours or whatever and two complained. About swearing.

The many millions heard that something terrible had gone on so watched you tube to find out what all the fuss was about and 30 000 decided it warranted a written complaint.

Think there are still many more not complaining. Especially if 6:1 of the letters received are in support of the BBC.

I have no opinion on Sachsgate but
the Daily Mail..well, that's one sick fucking joke in need of banning.

I cannot believe they dragged Mock the Week into this.
Actually I can. Taliban Fuckwits.

PMSL at Taliban fuckwits