David Mitchell's Offended by the BBC

[Bob The Skutter]

That isn't exactly true. There is talk of needing a licence if you use your broadband to watch live TV streams, and possibly using licence fee money to plug the gap of the national broadband coverage in the areas BT won't cover.

OK, it sounds like they'll be snooping to see where the live streams are going. That'll mean they'll need some way to correlate IP addresses with real-world addresses. I assume they'll use packet sniffing to see what's going to which address -- lots of scope there for invasion of privacy.

Just like they actually have the power to come in to your home and see your telly... oh wait, they don't. They need to get the police involved and a warrant for stuff like that. It'll come down to scare tactics, and possibly the occasional person coming round knocking like it always has.

 

[wamdue]

Didn't they have that Ferne Britton on Question Time the other week? Slagging off men, saying if women were in charge there'd be no money problems?

Fuck me...


Who will they have on next? Roy Chubby Brown? Saying its all the gooks and wogs fault?

lets face it there is alot of that anti male attitude to the media, something I really hate, but that is Fernes opinon, and I dont think when the BBC booked her they thought she would say something like that, unlike say Jim Davidson, who its expected of for him to say something like that.

I am pretty sure Question Time goes out live, so there was nothing which could be done.

^I agree. Sure it was stupid, puerile and should have never aired, but no one would have heard the thing if it wasn't for the Mail kicking up a fuss a week later. Obviously no one cared enough to make a complaint, until the papers started the shit slinging. Not even Manuel himself.

Well I can understand why Sachs didn't want to make a big deal of it. Just because people didn't complain at the time it doesn't make it acceptable, and the BBC probably need to realise that twatty papers like the Mail are just waiting for things like this.

I'm not saying it made it acceptable, I'm saying that it obviously didn't offend people listening too much, and the people who consequently complained only ever heard it because of the mail... and the version the mail had wasn't the version that aired... So while Wossy and Brand were in the wrong, and their editor/producers/etc. didn't do their jobs, the papers managed to kick up a fuss that wasn't warranted.

first off I dont understand why Russel Brand was on Radio 2 in the first place, he just isnt the right fit for Radio 2.

second quelle surprise the Russel Brand audience was not offended by his remarks, that doesn't mean that people who are not his viewers but pay there licence fees, should be denied the chance to find his remarks offensive.

a) that phone call should never have been made
b) it should never have been on air

its right that the press informed people of THIS incident.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Just like they actually have the power to come in to your home and see your telly... oh wait, they don't. They need to get the police involved and a warrant for stuff like that. It'll come down to scare tactics, and possibly the occasional person coming round knocking like it always has.

You're probably right. Actually, I'd really prefer that they just assumed everyone's got a TV, and funded public broadcasting from ordinary taxation. My only stipulation would be that the BBC stopped dumbing down to ITV levels, and returned to creating intelligent documentaries, non-trivial news analysis, and serious drama. And Doctor Who, of course. They could save money by ditching Heroes.

 

[wamdue]

oh yes and let Heroes go to Sky, that will please EVERYONE, NOT

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Didn't they have that Ferne Britton on Question Time the other week? Slagging off men, saying if women were in charge there'd be no money problems?

Fuck me...


Who will they have on next? Roy Chubby Brown? Saying its all the gooks and wogs fault?

lets face it there is alot of that anti male attitude to the media, something I really hate, but that is Fernes opinon, and I dont think when the BBC booked her they thought she would say something like that, unlike say Jim Davidson, who its expected of for him to say something like that.

I am pretty sure Question Time goes out live, so there was nothing which could be done.

Well I can understand why Sachs didn't want to make a big deal of it. Just because people didn't complain at the time it doesn't make it acceptable, and the BBC probably need to realise that twatty papers like the Mail are just waiting for things like this.

I'm not saying it made it acceptable, I'm saying that it obviously didn't offend people listening too much, and the people who consequently complained only ever heard it because of the mail... and the version the mail had wasn't the version that aired... So while Wossy and Brand were in the wrong, and their editor/producers/etc. didn't do their jobs, the papers managed to kick up a fuss that wasn't warranted.

first off I dont understand why Russel Brand was on Radio 2 in the first place, he just isnt the right fit for Radio 2.

second quelle surprise the Russel Brand audience was not offended by his remarks, that doesn't mean that people who are not his viewers but pay there licence fees, should be denied the chance to find his remarks offensive.

a) that phone call should never have been made
b) it should never have been on air

its right that the press informed people of THIS incident.

If people were interested they had every oppotunity to listen to it via the radio or iplayer for a week. They received something like 3 complaints in that week, then the Mail got all frothy mouthed and stirred shit to an insane degree, even after Sachs said he wished they would stop going on about it they continued their crusade. It was pathetic.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

oh yes and let Heroes go to Sky, that will please EVERYONE, NOT

You're still watching Heroes? Isn't there medication for that?

 

[wamdue]

oh yes and let Heroes go to Sky, that will please EVERYONE, NOT

You're still watching Heroes? Isn't there medication for that?

call me crazy but ive really been enjoying Volume 4 of Heroes.

If people were interested they had every oppotunity to listen to it via the radio or iplayer for a week. They received something like 3 complaints in that week, then the Mail got all frothy mouthed and stirred shit to an insane degree, even after Sachs said he wished they would stop going on about it they continued their crusade. It was pathetic.

obviously people wont listen to Brand on the iPlayer if they dont normally listen to him, and I would not trust Russel Brand or his audience with deciding what is fit to air on the BBC. Personally I would never have let him in the door of the BBC in the first place. The Mail didnt write all the complaint letters, it told people what had happened, and the people themselves complained.

At the end of the day I didnt like what Brand & Ross did, and im glad the media informed me of it, otherwise the BBC would have just assumed that I was ok with it, simply because I don't normally listen to Brand.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

If people were interested they had every oppotunity to listen to it via the radio or iplayer for a week. They received something like 3 complaints in that week, then the Mail got all frothy mouthed and stirred shit to an insane degree, even after Sachs said he wished they would stop going on about it they continued their crusade. It was pathetic.

obviously people wont listen to Brand on the iPlayer if they dont normally listen to him, and I would not trust Russel Brand or his audience with deciding what is fit to air on the BBC. Personally I would never have let him in the door of the BBC in the first place. The Mail didnt write all the complaint letters, it told people what had happened, and the people themselves complained.

At the end of the day I didnt like what Brand & Ross did, and im glad the media informed me of it, otherwise the BBC would have just assumed that I was ok with it, simply because I don't normally listen to Brand.

No, they would have assumed the listeners didn't have a problem with it, but they would have investigated the complaints anyway. They have to. Most people may dislike what they did, but come on the reason the Mail reported it was to stir shit, not inform people that it happened, which is why they put the whole unedited thing on there, including the stuff that wasn't aired.
Personally I didn't like it, but no one would have given two fucks if it had been a joke pulled on commercial radio against some bloke they'd never heard of.

 

[wamdue]

If people were interested they had every oppotunity to listen to it via the radio or iplayer for a week. They received something like 3 complaints in that week, then the Mail got all frothy mouthed and stirred shit to an insane degree, even after Sachs said he wished they would stop going on about it they continued their crusade. It was pathetic.

obviously people wont listen to Brand on the iPlayer if they dont normally listen to him, and I would not trust Russel Brand or his audience with deciding what is fit to air on the BBC. Personally I would never have let him in the door of the BBC in the first place. The Mail didnt write all the complaint letters, it told people what had happened, and the people themselves complained.

At the end of the day I didnt like what Brand & Ross did, and im glad the media informed me of it, otherwise the BBC would have just assumed that I was ok with it, simply because I don't normally listen to Brand.

1) No, they would have assumed the listeners didn't have a problem with it, but they would have investigated the complaints anyway. They have to.


2) Personally I didn't like it, but no one would have given two fucks if it had been a joke pulled on commercial radio against some bloke they'd never heard of.

1) I would like to be able to give my opinon on something the BBC airs, even if I didnt watch or listen to it. My licence fee does pay for it after all.

2) to be honest if it had been done on a commercial radio station, I would still find it offensive, but ive not paid for that radio station, so its less of an issue. How much of an issue the Daily Mail make of something does not reflect on my opinon of it, and im pretty sure the Daily Mail was not the only paper to cover it.

 

[Starkers]

Just like they actually have the power to come in to your home and see your telly... oh wait, they don't. They need to get the police involved and a warrant for stuff like that. It'll come down to scare tactics, and possibly the occasional person coming round knocking like it always has.

You're probably right. Actually, I'd really prefer that they just assumed everyone's got a TV, and funded public broadcasting from ordinary taxation. My only stipulation would be that the BBC stopped dumbing down to ITV levels, and returned to creating intelligent documentaries, non-trivial news analysis, and serious drama. And Doctor Who, of course. They could save money by ditching Heroes.

That's not a bad idea actually, but I don't think there's anything inherantly wrong in them making some popular shows(like Dr Who, and heaven help me I would miss Strictly!)

 

[Starkers]

If people were interested they had every oppotunity to listen to it via the radio or iplayer for a week. They received something like 3 complaints in that week, then the Mail got all frothy mouthed and stirred shit to an insane degree, even after Sachs said he wished they would stop going on about it they continued their crusade. It was pathetic.

obviously people wont listen to Brand on the iPlayer if they dont normally listen to him, and I would not trust Russel Brand or his audience with deciding what is fit to air on the BBC. Personally I would never have let him in the door of the BBC in the first place. The Mail didnt write all the complaint letters, it told people what had happened, and the people themselves complained.

At the end of the day I didnt like what Brand & Ross did, and im glad the media informed me of it, otherwise the BBC would have just assumed that I was ok with it, simply because I don't normally listen to Brand.

No, they would have assumed the listeners didn't have a problem with it, but they would have investigated the complaints anyway. They have to. Most people may dislike what they did, but come on the reason the Mail reported it was to stir shit, not inform people that it happened, which is why they put the whole unedited thing on there, including the stuff that wasn't aired.
Personally I didn't like it, but no one would have given two fucks if it had been a joke pulled on commercial radio against some bloke they'd never heard of.

True, I think the one thing that annoyed me most about the whole mess was when they kept dragging up about Sach's granddaughter being a burlesque dancer, like this made it ok for Brand and Ross to say what they did. I dunno, just struck me a bit like saying a woman deserved to be raped because she was wearing a short skirt and high heels!

 

[wamdue]

I think the Satanic Sluts is part of what gave the story the legs it had.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

obviously people wont listen to Brand on the iPlayer if they dont normally listen to him, and I would not trust Russel Brand or his audience with deciding what is fit to air on the BBC. Personally I would never have let him in the door of the BBC in the first place. The Mail didnt write all the complaint letters, it told people what had happened, and the people themselves complained.

At the end of the day I didnt like what Brand & Ross did, and im glad the media informed me of it, otherwise the BBC would have just assumed that I was ok with it, simply because I don't normally listen to Brand.

No, they would have assumed the listeners didn't have a problem with it, but they would have investigated the complaints anyway. They have to. Most people may dislike what they did, but come on the reason the Mail reported it was to stir shit, not inform people that it happened, which is why they put the whole unedited thing on there, including the stuff that wasn't aired.
Personally I didn't like it, but no one would have given two fucks if it had been a joke pulled on commercial radio against some bloke they'd never heard of.

True, I think the one thing that annoyed me most about the whole mess was when they kept dragging up about Sach's granddaughter being a burlesque dancer, like this made it ok for Brand and Ross to say what they did. I dunno, just struck me a bit like saying a woman deserved to be raped because she was wearing a short skirt and high heels!

I know what you mean. I think basically if all they were out to do was report it then they wouldn't have made such a frothy mouthed deal about it. But they did because they have an agenda to push.

Wamdue, why do you care if you never heard it? You didn't tune in to be offended in the first place so why be bothered? If you hear about it and someone asks your opinion, or the BBC run a consultation about it sure you have the right to express your opinion, but complaining about something you never heard, and likely never would have heard is just stupid.

 

[wamdue]

Wamdue, why do you care if you never heard it? You didn't tune in to be offended in the first place so why be bothered? If you hear about it and someone asks your opinion, or the BBC run a consultation about it sure you have the right to express your opinion, but complaining about something you never heard, and likely never would have heard is just stupid.

ok lets say the BBC had phoned you up & said "we would like some money off you to pay Brand & Ross to make a phone call to a grandfarther in which they say some things about his granddaughter that are in very poor taste, and then we will broadcast it across the world on Radio 2" would you give them the money to do that?

I would like to think that you would not give them the money, the problem is you already did when you paid your licence fee, which is why we should be allowed to have an opinon on what the BBC do, even if we dont watch or listen to everything they do.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Wamdue, why do you care if you never heard it? You didn't tune in to be offended in the first place so why be bothered? If you hear about it and someone asks your opinion, or the BBC run a consultation about it sure you have the right to express your opinion, but complaining about something you never heard, and likely never would have heard is just stupid.

ok lets say the BBC had phoned you up & said "we would like some money off you to pay Brand & Ross to make a phone call to a grandfarther in which they say some things about his granddaughter that are in very poor taste, and then we will broadcast it across the world on Radio 2" would you give them the money to do that?

I would like to think that you would not give them the money, the problem is you already did when you paid your licence fee, which is why we should be allowed to have an opinon on what the BBC do, even if we dont watch or listen to everything they do.

That's just ridiculous though. I mean there's a lot of shows I wouldn't fund if they asked me, whether they are offensive or not.

 

[wamdue]

Wamdue, why do you care if you never heard it? You didn't tune in to be offended in the first place so why be bothered? If you hear about it and someone asks your opinion, or the BBC run a consultation about it sure you have the right to express your opinion, but complaining about something you never heard, and likely never would have heard is just stupid.

ok lets say the BBC had phoned you up & said "we would like some money off you to pay Brand & Ross to make a phone call to a grandfarther in which they say some things about his granddaughter that are in very poor taste, and then we will broadcast it across the world on Radio 2" would you give them the money to do that?

I would like to think that you would not give them the money, the problem is you already did when you paid your licence fee, which is why we should be allowed to have an opinon on what the BBC do, even if we dont watch or listen to everything they do.

That's just ridiculous though. I mean there's a lot of shows I wouldn't fund if they asked me, whether they are offensive or not.

and I have already said, that I don't complain about the BBC funding a TV show that I dont watch or listen to.

I have never been a Russel Brand fan, and never complained when he moved to Radio 2, despite the fact he never belonged on Radio 2 in the first place, and it was only a matter of time before he went too far, and something like what did happen would happen.

When the BBC does something offensive, it needs to be told that it is done so, the idea that the BBC can do whatever it wants just as long as no one who might not approve of that, finds out about it, is wrong.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Offensive to who though? If the people who heard it aren't complaining, and the people it should have been most offensive to aren't complaining, then why get worked up over something that you never heard, were never likely to hear, and caused no offence to anyone involved?
Sachs had every right to complain, but he didn't in the 2 weeks since it occured, his grandaughter didn't begin to complain until the papers started it, and no one else mustered the indignation to complain until the national bitchfest began.

 

[wamdue]

Offensive to who though? If the people who heard it aren't complaining,

as ive said previously, do you really think its a good idea to let Russel Brand and his fans decide what the BBC should & shouldnt do?

look its clear we are not going to agree on this, and I would like to watch Supernatural, so can we call a 60 minute break?

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Offensive to who though? If the people who heard it aren't complaining,

as ive said previously, do you really think its a good idea to let Russel Brand and his fans decide what the BBC should & shouldnt do?

look its clear we are not going to agree on this, and I would like to watch Supernatural, so can we call a 60 minute break?

Sure, you don't have to ask me if you want to go do something else, rather than have a stupid back and forth.

I'm sure there are many people who listen to Radio 2 regardless of who is presenting, so it wouldn't just be his fans. But I did include Andrew Sachs and his grandaughter, people who were actually affected by it, and they did not complain for 2 weeks until the papers dragged them in to it. So I don't see why anyone else should really care overly about it.
Especially not to the point where we are now, and shows are self censored rather than cause offence to the frothy mouthed tabloid press.

I think I'll leave it there, unless you want to continue the back and forth when you get back.

 

[wamdue]

I just didnt want you to think that just because I had not replied, that I had given up or worse had changed my mind.

as for Radio 2, I listen to it, but not shows I dont like, for example I wont listen to Chris Evans, and as you may have guessed I didnt listen to the Russel Brand show either.

and do I like that shows are being or are self censored, no I dont.

anyways im off now