New of the World: Ross needs to be banned for 'Sex with OAP gag'

[morningpaper]

They are going to sit and listen to young Jonathan until they find SOME REASON TO FIRE THE BASTARD

Poor wossy

Hope they never venture over to Mumsnet or they will keel over in horror

I agree. Read and thought whats the problem?........
He makes risque comments.
I don't find then offensive and if people don't like him they shouldn't listen. There is an off button!

But MP - if I were offered even half of what he gets I would become pure and virginal!!! And I would even give up fecking swearing.

i thought it was amusing

mind you i always say any young men i date are doing their bit for help the aged....

Why should you pay your licence fee only to have to turn the thing off?

I do think he is in the wrong time now, if that makes sense. He earns a huge amount of money and all we get is how he is mates with loads of famous people, pictures of events his family have been at and sad remarks about his female guests must want to sleep with him.

I think he has lost touch with the audience that has stuck with him for 20 years and is now trying to get in with the Russell Brand demographic.

I read someone suggesting he should have a taste of the medecine Carol Vorderman had, i.e. you can stay in the job but at a fraction of the pay.

DC was complaing about listening to that sort of thing with his family.
It may be Radio 2, but it's Jonathan Ross. You know that a lot of what he goes on about is not family listening.

No one complains about the barely veiled filth that Terry Wogan broadcasts...(which is blardy funny IMO!Janet and John story anyone?!)

I think he's got enough money to do as he pleases, which perpetuates a sort of 'Tourette's' which has always been present.

Is he in free-fall? Yes, I think he probably is .. but I think he's extremely funny when he's on form.

Let's just hope he doesn't do a Barrymore.

'It came just after 10 o?clock in the morning when families and children were listening'

How nice of a paper with pics of ladies in states of severe undress to worry about what our children hear.

I would suggest they found some proper 'news' to report as the 'world' is full of it but I'd be wasting my time really.

I know grouch...the News Of the World's double standards are beyond belief.

I'm not that bothered about this particular joke, but I would like to know, as a matter of principle, whether the BBC applies a 'watershed' policy to its radio content. It's not unreasonable for people to expect to be able to listen to the radio with their children before noon on a Saturday. I think a bit of clarity would be helpful for everyone, not least Ross.

That's a good point, PW. The comments, as in all comments, should be put in context .. and 10am is not the correct context.

I agree Desi - I don't think it is the correct context (although not horribly offensive either - just in mildly bad taste).

My problem is that the BBC is putting the onus on the listeners to judge whether a certain show is going to be suitable listening for children. Fair enough if you're familiar with the show in question (and you'd have to be pretty uninformed not to know about Ross by now), but what if you're not familiar with it?

We don't expect sexual content at 10am on the BBC's TV channels, so why is it OK on radio? (I don't actually have a huge problem with sexual content myself - try to be reasonably upfront with the boys about this sort of thing - but I'm genuinely puzzled about the logic behind some of these decisions.)

But JR on at 9pm at night and you wouldn't have a problem, and the NOTW would have to think of something else to write about.

Surely Radio 1 is worse though PW? At pretty much any time of the day, the times that DH has left the blardy car radio tuned to R1 I have to listen to complete crap from the DJs there

Deconstruct most comedy and it's pretty terrifying

Ross's tv show on Friday was so bland it was dull

Oh I'm sure R1 is just as bad at times, esp. when Chris toss-face is on - never listen to it myself.

I'm not making a specifically anti-Ross point, believe it or not - just suspect that the BBC could make life easier for itself, and take the wind out of the press's sails, if it set up an absolutely clear policy about what is and is not acceptable on the radio when children might reasonably be listening. They can do it with telly, so it can't be that hard.

What about Radio 4? I'm always having to turn that off because it is discussing rape/peederfiles/sex

Radio 4 is FILTHY

Hmm, that's a good point. Wouldn't want the Woman's Hour vag-talk stopped.

Maybe it's OK to talk about sex so long as nobody is laughing?

good idea pw

filthy allowed as long as it's not funny

Detailed descriptions of genitalia and sexual acts, with sound effects, welcome so long as nobody could possibly derive any amusement

I wonder what the rationale is though. Is it that radio is a less immediate format (lack of visuals) so it's assumed that content can be more adult? Or do producers take an informed decision about whether children are likely to be listening?

Radio 5 is much more cautious about content than Radio 4, for instance. What's the thinking there - that R5 listeners are infantile? Or just more likely to read the Daily Mail?

R5 infantile I think

Terry Wogan really IS filthy if you actually listen to him

that's ok though because he's old and nice

What a HUGE over-reaction.

and what about the Blue Chip Filth of the sadly missed Humphrey Lyttleton then? And DH is convince R4 is for boring DM types.

JW is a middle aged pretender who thinks he's still jiggy with it. Poor misguided fool. Lets get him to the end of the over inflated Pre credit crunch contract and get someone who actually means something. In the meantime, just ignore him like you would any toddler who's picked up a 'naughty word'

I saw the headline this morning and thought exactly what the OP said - the Daily Mail brigade are just going to pick over every single second of everything he broadcasts to ensure they don't miss out on a single chance to be Very Outraged Indeed. o be honest, they'd all be gutted if Ross was sacked because then they'd have nothing to be morally uptight upright about.

And to the poster who said why should they pay their licence fee only to have to turn the thing off - if you really are so addicted to the BBC that you listen to/watch BBC programmes 24/7, you've got more to worry about than what Jonathan Ross is saying!

The Daily Mail is also determined to see Ross lose it all.

I have no idea what their problem is. Their own standards are so mediocre.

I suppose the logical thing for him to do is take a paycut and go to a non-BBC channel

shame

It's a non issue

OK Andrew Sachs one (even I couldnt see the reason for so much furore) was taken into AS's home so bad form; but this is nowt. Nowt at all.

There has to be a range for sifferent opeople. I can't stand 99% of what the BBC broadcasts, I don't complain. So I don't expect people who fit the demographics for the stuff I don't care about to want to remove the one thing that doesn't appeal to them iyswim.