I agree that it achieves nothing to censor Nick Griffin and the BNP. Banning his party from question time would have been counter productive, making them cause celebres. I don’t believe that anyone watching will get the idea that the BNP have any ideas worth voting for unless they already had racist views.
I keep hearing though that the way to defeat the BNP is to engage with them. Must I? I want to see fewer people voting BNP sure, but I don’t want to have to listen to Griffin’s bilge. Sorry that’s how I feel. I’m not boycotting Question Time in disgust at the BBC, I just don’t want to hear that idiot speak.
It may seem undemocratic, or prejudiced, but freedom of speach does not mean people have to listen.
The big story recently has been the reaction to a piece in the Daily Mail by columnist Jan Moir about the death of Steven Gateley. To date the press complaints commission have received 21,000 complaints about the piece.
I found the original piece mildly offensive, but that’s nothing compared to what happened next. Instead of being chastened Moir hit back at her critics, calling the complaints the results of a mischievous and orchestrated twitter campaign.
I am amused by this. I think back to the last campaign orchestrated against someone who has offended people in society. What was it, oh yes, the campaign against the BBC over a couple of lines in a radio broadcast . Orchestrated by- The Daily Mail. That campaign was mischievous- as many had not heard the broadcast but just wanted to stick it to. Compared to this campaign where I feel people are genuinely aggrieved by what was written.
Moir’s column was a written piece, not an off the cuff comment like that made on Radio 2, and what’s more she has not accepted she did anything wrong. Ross and Brand both apologized for what they did. Ross was punished, while Brand resigned.
If the Daily Mail are consistent they should take on board that this column was far worse than the Ross_brand prank call incident and act as they feel appropriately.
The BBC is not a taxi. It’s a bus. Paying your licence fee and deciding that entitles you to dictate the output of the BBC is like buying a bus ticket and saying “Right, I’ve got this ticket, therefore this is now my bus! It must drive me home, park in front of my house and wait there until the morning when I need it again.”
- Mitch Benn
(c/o Barnaby “Dalek Innards” Edwards)
I’m in a desperate moral dilemma.
I’m actually quite glad Russell Brand has left the BBC. He’s an irritating idiot who rarely makes use of the decent brain he was born with and isn’t funny. BUT, I’m deeply concerned that his departure means giving in to the wishes of the easily offended, ignorant mob.
I’m getting fed up of the whole circus surrounding this whole saga. Listening to Richard Allinson in the mornings (a welcome break from Sarah Kennedy) I have to agree with his weariness.
Do I need to summarise the situation? Well OK I’ll be quick. The week before last, Andrew Sachs was due to be interviewed by Russell Brand and his guest Jonathan Ross for the Russel Brand show on Radio 2. Only, he was unexpectedly and inexplicably unavailable. So they decided to leave a message on Sachs’ answer phone, in the manner of teenage youths leaving a jokey message for a mate who’d forgotten to turn up at the party. Only Andrew Sachs is not a mate of Russell and Jonathan, and he didn’t find it all that funny. So far, so childish.
Fast forward to this Sunday just gone, and the Mail On Sunday gets hold of the story, over a week later, and in their inimitable style twist and misrepresent it in the worst possible light to elicit outrage from their readership. Which they get, in spades.
Unlike the 30,000 who complained, I actually heard the show “live”. OK, so not
live but on the original broadcast. It took me a while to work out that Jonathan Ross. It was not the best radio programme I’d ever heard, and I only kept it on because I was loathe to get the laptop out and listen to something else. It wasn’t, I have to say in the best of taste. They were irresponsible and did something wrong. It was as some say “out of order”. But it didn’t warrant all this.
To me, the people who are malicious are the hordes of people who didn’t listen to the broadcast and complained, based on the press hype. Particularly the ones who don’t care what was said, but just want to stick the boot in. People who complained because they hate Brand and Ross for being overpaid and overhyped, or because they can’t stand that sort of broadcasting were given an excuse to behave in a despicable manner. People who would describe it, not in terms like “a bit offensive” or “childish” or “stupid” but as “disgusting filth”. Most of the 30000 complaints could be more accurately described as malicious than that stupid childish broadcast.
These people and the ones in this case who deserve the lion’s share of the opprobrium. It is a massive injustice that they have been listened to. I can’t be pleased that a radio show I vaguely dislike is off the air, because of the terrible, terrible way in which it came about.
I am not sorry to see Brand go, and can take or leave Ross. But I am deeply concerned as to the sort of people who are getting their voices listened to over this.
Apologies to people who don’t listen to Radio4.
Listened to Feedback on Friday lunch, and had to giggle.
Where do they get these people?
Lots of people were up in arms about the sensational storylines in the Archers, particularly the recent Sam and Ruth business. I don’t know about the validity of those just complaining about the sensational aspects, but many were complaining about personality transplants, and things having happened virtually overnight with no build up. What have these people been listening to? One listener went on to complain that these things should be prepared for months in advance. Well unlike my father I’m no regular listener, but they were.
One thing the Archers doesn’t do is fast paced story lines. Jack Woolly was slowly going senile for years. The Sam and Ruth storyline has been bubbling along in the background that even I as someone who listens when I happen to be in the car at the time have picked up on it.
Things don’t suddenly happen in the Archers. Which makes me wonder how unperceptive you have to be to be surprised by plot twists like this one.
It’s all due to come to a head the day before my birthday, the Archers’ 1500000th episode. I may even tune in.
Watched extras last night as it was on before Mitchell and Webb. Very funny but like the office I couldn’t sit through a full episode because I was cringing too much. During the episode was a spoof sequence from “The Wright Stuff”, where he gave an ignorant interpretation of some tabloid hacks hatchett job.
But today I have the misfortune of having to wait in for a technician to fix my washing machine (hence blogging during work hours). And Wright is as ignorant as his characature. He makes Jeremy Vine seem incisive.
Still I don’t think Daniel Radcliffe is like that.
Oh he’s done, surprise surprise the part isn’t carried on the van.
Today I made the fatal mistake of going out in my car at lunchtime. Why? Well for the moment I have forgone the Today programme in favour of the Togmeister on Radio 2.
However at lunchtime its the Jeremy Vine show, or as some call it the Daily Mail of radio. (Not to be confused with Tonight with Trevor McDonald).
The item under discussion was the two judges who were embroiled in charges of employing an illegal immigrant. Now the term “illegal immigrant” is a red rag to certain sectors of society, meaning they lose all sense of, well sense.
OK so the Judges have done something embarrassing in their private life, that is more than a little ironic given their day jobs. But some of the responses were frankly silly. Lots of mentions were made of how the judges paid the woman’s national insurance, but surely cleaners either work for agencies or are self employed. When my window cleaner comes round I don’t pay him what I owe less tax and national insurance, and send the rest to the inland revenue. Similarly the electrician who will be round next week will be sending me an invoice for the whole job and he will fill in his own tax return. Why is a cleaner any different in people’s minds? Of course the judges have been very silly and deserve the consequences, but if we can’t even comprehend the simpler aspects of the story what validity do our views have?
“You don’t need a degree in rocket science” said one caller before demonstrating his complete lack of understanding of the situation. Well if Jeremy Vine and his callers are any indication of the state of the UK, no wonder Beagle 2 failed.
Vine’s style doesn’t help. He has a very urgent style of a hard hitting reporter which cracks to pices with some of his questions which betray a poor understanding of the stiuation. Jimmy Young used to ask similar questions, only with his more gentle avuncular style he came across as someone who wanted to be enlightened, or indeed dispel misconceptions, rather than a dim person refusing to listen.
Meanwhile a friend of a friend who has been here since before I was born is being deported because it’s no longer dangerous in her country of origin. A pillar of the community is being sent back so NAS can show the baying mob it’s doing what they want. Sick.
Must get back to work.
Simon, an old aquaintance from when I lived within going out in the evening distance of London, has highlighted the new BBC1 identity. Out go the “Dancing” idents, which I thought were a little twee for their PC content. And in come a series of images based on the idea of a circle.
I just love the Hippos one.
A fantastical exploration of what it would look like if adult hippos could swim. The action climaxes with synchronised swimming in a circle. The 3D hippos were created by Framestore CFC, the team behind the famous Walking With series led by Mike McGee.
So entertainingly barking!
Yes it’s 50 years since Grace Archer died in a tragic blaze at Grey Gables’ stable block.
Oh and some TV station started.
Wasn’t this weeks Now Show great. Oh I’m sorry you havn’t heard it yet. But I saw it being recorded tonight and got the full directors cut. The show takes about an hour to go through with a warm up before hand and retakes afterwards. They went through quite a few of the audience questions, many more than will be broadcast. Some of which were unbroadcastable.
Marcus Brigstocke was good on Sorryeverybody.com and the Bush presidency in general, but there was one line about the website having more hits than [celebrity's name]‘s wife, which may get cut for legal reasons. The audience didn’t get that he was calling [celebrity's name] a wifebeater anyway.