BBC, Daily Mail, Gaza and huge agendas

This is hilarious! Had the BBC screened the appeal the Daily Mail without a doubt would attack the BBC for “left-wing bias” towards Palestine against Israel.
The Daily Mail is so anti-BBC that nothing the BBC does will ever be right in their eyes.

From the Daily Mail:

DAILY MAIL COMMENT: Gaza, bias and the BBC

26th January 2009

Once again, the BBC finds itself in a mess of its own making, angering 11,000 viewers, the Government, MPs and the Church by refusing to broadcast a charity aid appeal for Gaza.
The corporation says it is worried that, by screening a film which ITV, Channel Four and Five are all prepared to air, it would place its reputation for political impartiality at risk. Fat chance!
That reputation was shredded long ago, when it adopted an institutionally liberal attitude to everything from abortion and migration to minority rights and religion.

Wasn’t the BBC also happy to give days of programming to the highly-political Make Poverty History campaign – even dedicating an episode of the Vicar Of Dibley to the cause? So much for impartiality.
Of course, Israel had every right to defend itself against the onslaught of terrorist rocket attacks. Yes, there may well be concerns over where any money raised will go, given Gaza is run by Hamas, a corrupt terrorist regime.

But it is clear the conflict in Gaza has left a humanitarian crisis. The Disaster Emergency Committee, which is running the appeal, is an internationally respected charitable body. It is impartial.
The BBC should stop the navel-gazing, screen the appeal along with its rivals and leave the judgment over whether to make a donation to the instincts of the licence-fee payer.
“The corporation says it is worried that, by screening a film which ITV, Channel Four and Five are all prepared to air, it would place its reputation for political impartiality at risk. Fat chance!
hat reputation was shredded long ago, when it adopted an institutionally liberal attitude to everything from abortion and migration to minority rights and religion.”

The Daily Mail would have the BBC adopt an illibrel attitude towards abortion, migration, minority rights and religion.
Haul up the drawbridge, no rights for minorities, ban all abortion and Christanity is the only way for Britain!

They would have no problem with the BBC not being impartial if it pushed the kind of xenophobic, homophobic and downright intolerant nastyness that they deliver week in week out and which the majority of their readers go along with.

For the Daily Mail this isn’t about impartiality. It’s about them having another chance to bash the BBC for being left-wing biased and run by “wet PC Guardian reading librels”.

“Of course, Israel had every right to defend itself against the onslaught of terrorist rocket attacks. Yes, there may well be concerns over where any money raised will go, given Gaza is run by Hamas, a corrupt terrorist regime.”

And if the BBC were to screen the appeal the Daily Mail would be screaming bloddy murder from the rooftops about the BBC “raising money for terrorists”.

They would haul out Tory MPs to give them rent-a-quotes about how disgusting it is that a publically funded broadcaster is raising money for a terrorist organisation.

With the Daily Mail the BBC just can never win!

As for the BBC’s decision not to screen the appeal Mediasnoops agrees with those who say that decision is wrong.

But we don’t believe their decision has anything to do with them being put under pressure by Israeli government officials.

It’s more to do with them panicking after the Jonathon Ross/Russel Brand/Andrew Sachs radio affair and their fears of further attack by the right-wing press.

Beyer uses Ross return to plug no swearing campaign

Beyer moans about all the publicity given to Ross over his return
but that publicity is in turn helping him to plug his campaign and
pressure group.

From The Sunday Express:

MILLIONS TUNE IN AS TV ROSS FIGHT TO STAY

Jonathan Ross arrives to present his radio show

By David Stephenson and Jane Clinton SHAMED Jonathan Ross returned
to our TV screens and ate humble pie in a desperate attempt to keep
his job and secure a new multi-million pound deal.

The £6million-a-year presenter, who is fighting for his future at
the BBC, will take solace from the fact that a record 4.7 million
people tuned in to see his comeback show on Friday.

And that was despite the show being up against Celebrity Big
Brother.

At one point, when Hollywood star Tom Cruise came on as a guest, 5.1
million people were watching.

Before his suspension over the Andrew Sachs phone prank, Friday
Night With Jonathan Ross averaged 3.8 million viewers and never more
than 4.6 million.

Despite the well-received return after three months in the cold, a
senior BBC source said: “I can tell you that Ross will never be paid
the same amount again.

“It will be vastly reduced, but there will be a new contract
eventually.”

Television insiders are predicting Ross will be negotiating a new
deal with the BBC once his £18million three-year contract expires at
the end of the year.

A well-placed tele­vision source said: “Jonathan has the rest of the
year to serve on his three-year contract, and he’s not going ­
anywhere.”

The insider added that Ross was also determined that his own
company, Hot Sauce, would continue to make Friday Night With
Jonathan Ross.

This could be where the fiercest battle is fought.

The corporation is understood to be phasing out the use of “talent-
owned” production companies, such as Hot Sauce, after the Sachs
scandal.

Russell Brand, Ross’s co-conspirator in the tasteless phone calls to
one of Britain’s best-loved veteran actors, also had his own
production company, Vanity Projects, which produced his Radio 2 show.

The BBC Trust found there had been a “conflict of interest”.

It went on to recommend a review of “the supervision of independent ­
productions by the BBC”.

A BBC spokesman said: “The management is also reviewing the
editorial controls and compliance procedures in place for all
programmes where the production company is owned and/or managed by
the performer.”

With Ross, Hot Sauce not only produces his show, but the executive
producer is his agent, Addison Creswell.

Yesterday Ross was still contrite as he returned to his Radio 2 show.

He apologised again for the lewd messages he and Brand left on
Fawlty Towers actor Andrew Sachs’s telephone about Brand’s affair
with his grand-daughter Georgina Baillie.

He also told his audience he had found it “peculiar” not working
over Christmas.

Despite the warm reception, Ross and Brand are not completely in the
clear over the Sachs scandal.

Ofcom is still investigating, and could land the BBC with a fine of
£250,000.

John Beyer of Mediawatch has slammed the BBC’s coverage of the ­
presenter’s return after suspension.

“The coverage afforded to the return of Ross was extravagant, to say
the least, turning it into a major news event.

“He was treated like a hero ­rather than someone who has done
something absolutely unacceptable.”

Beyer said more than 3,000 people have now signed the Stop Swearing
Petition on the Number 10 website, launched in the wake of the
affair.

The director of BBC Vision, Jana Bennett, told ITV1’s Tonight
programme that Ross had spoken to BBC bosses about the use of “over-
the-top language”.

Apart from Cruise, Stephen Fry and comedian Lee Evans also guested
on the return of Friday’s show. Fry told Ross it was an “honour and
privilege” to help him “off the naughty step”.
“The coverage afforded to the return of Ross was extravagant, to say
the least, turning it into a major news event.”

Ross’s return has been turned into a major news event not just by
the BBC but by the entire media, especially the tabloid press and
especially the Daily Mail.

Why doesn’t Beyer have a go at them for their extravagent coverage
as well? He wouldn’t want to antogonise his main outlet of publicity
though.

The whole saga has been turned into a major news event, taking
precedence over more important news. Beyer doesn’t seem to mind that
though as it gives him a chance to sound off in his favourite
tabloid rags.

“He was treated like a hero ­rather than someone who has done
something absolutely unacceptable.”

Oh bollox! The BBC only gave his the same coverage as all the other
media has done. They never treated him like a hero they just
reported his return. Yes it was over the top but so has the coverage
of all the other news outlets.

“Beyer said more than 3,000 people have now signed the Stop Swearing
Petition on the Number 10 website, launched in the wake of the
affair.”

And Beyer is quite happy to use the extravagent coverage of Ross’s return to gain more signatures for the petition.

Natch!

Beyer gets another mugshot as everyone’s back on the Ross bandwagon

Hang on what is that Ross actually said? Look at the transcipt below there is nothing said by Ross about having sex with an old lady.

 

The tabloids have twisted it to suit their own agenda against Ross and the BBC. And publicity hungry suckers like Beyer have been taken in like the mugs they are!

 

From the News Of The World:

Ross does sick OAP sex gag

BBC Radio2 scandal: We reveal 80-year-old at centre DJ’s jibe has Alzheimer’s

ON THE MOVE: Ross leaves his home

By Adam Thorn, Guy Basnett, Phil Taylor & Dan Wootton, 25/01/2009

THE FOUL mouth of shamed Jonathan Ross put his BBC career on a new knife-edge yesterday—just minutes after he returned to Radio 2 from his three-month suspension.

 

The mega-bucks star’s crude joke about sex with an 86-year-old woman infuriated listeners.

 

And last night as it emerged that the woman is a REAL PERSON with ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE there were mounting calls for Ross to be SACKED from his £6 million-a-year job.

CLICK HERE FOR EXCLUSIVE PICS OF FRAIL VICTIIM

 

The shocking blunder came while ad-libbing on air with producer Andy Davies about an elderly woman neighbour then urging him to “give her one last night”.

 

Jonathan Ross’s sick sex slur, as broadcast on Radio 2, Jan 24

 

They were a mere eight minutes and 35 seconds into yesterday’s big comeback show following Ross’s Beeb ban over the Sachsgate scandal, when he and comedian Russell Brand left filthy phone messages for 78-year-old actor Andrew Sachs.

 

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

 

Ross, 48, and freelance 43-year-old Davies had been discussing how they spent their time during the suspension.

 

Davies said he did some bricklaying in the garden of his villa in Spain but kept getting grabbed by a frisky 80-year-old woman.

 

 

 

Ross finished up by declaring: “Eighty, oh God! I think you should, just for charity.

 

“Give her one last night, will you? One last night before the grave. Would it kill you?”

 

 

The banter ended abruptly there without any explanation. The Ting Tings’ record That’s Not My Name was played and the pair did not return to the story afterwards.

 

It’s not known if Ross was ordered to stop the sequence.

 

But reaction was swift. Tory MP David Davies was listening to the show with his young children and demanded the BBC immediately sack Ross.

 

He raged: “On Radio 2 you don’t expected X-rated references to sex, and especially sex with an 80-year-old, during the day.

 

“I was listening with my kids to this. There’s a place for humour but it has to be appropriate to the time of the day. And that clearly wasn’t.

 

John Whittingdale, Tory Culture chief

 

There is an argument the BBC shouldn’t employ him

 

“He should have gone ages ago. There’s no way this man should be on the air. He needs to be replaced now!

 

“It’s obscene, especially given the amount of money Ross is being paid. It could also be highly offensive to this woman if she’s a real person.”

 

Last night at producer Davies’s home near Granada in Southern Spain his wife Abigail—who listened to the broadcast there—confirmed that the pensioner DOES exist.

 

She said: “It’s very sad because she has Alzheimer’s Disease. She takes a fancy to any man in the street and tries to kiss them.”

 

Giggling, she added: “I shouldn’t be laughing because, as I say, it’s very sad, and she doesn’t really realise what she’s doing.

 

“I sometimes walk her home because she gets confused about where she is.”

 

Meanwhile former Home Secretary David Blunkett called for Ross’s pay to be docked as a result of this latest incident. He said: “It’s time for Ross to donate some of his salary to charity.”

 

Regular Radio 2 listener Nigel Langstone, 43, from Leamington, Warwickshire, was furious over Ross’s comments and said: “I couldn’t believe what I was hearing.

 

Ex Home Sec David Blunkett

 

It’s time for Ross to donate some of his salary to charity

 

“He gets kicked off air for three months for hounding an old man with disgusting comments about his grand-daughter.

 

“Then virtually the first thing he does after getting back is start telling a gag about sex with an 80-year-old woman. How insensitive can you be?

 

“It just shows he’s learned absolutely nothing and is a loose cannon who can’t be controlled.

 

“What’s worse is that the exchange happened with his own producer—the man who’s supposed to control him.

 

“The BBC is totally OUT of control. They’ve no idea how much offence they’re causing.

 

“Ross should be taken off air immediately. He’s a timebomb waiting to go off.”

 

Ross’s latest gaffe came a day after BBC bosses heavily censored his comeback TV show, Friday Night with Jonathan Ross.

 

Mediawatch director John Beyer

 

Jokes like this are not on. He should have gone months ago

 

Mediawatch, which campaigns for “socially responsible broadcasting”, last night joined the call for the star to go.

 

Director John Beyer said: “Making jokes like this is not acceptable. He should have gone three months ago and I haven’t changed my view.”

 

But Sir Michael Lyons, chairman of the BBC Trust, refused to condemn Ross. He even declined to listen to a transcript of the crass comments and said: “You’re not going to expect me to make any comment on this, are you?”

 

BBC Director-General Mark Thompson — on £816,000 a year of licence-payers money — REFUSED to discuss the incident and hung up on us.

 

Later the corporation defended Ross in a statement which said: “Regular listeners will be familiar with Jonathan’s irreverence and innuendo.

 

Sir Michael Lyons, BBC Trust chairman

 

You don’t expect me to comment on this, do you?

 

“This light-hearted exchange contained no offensive language, named no individuals and there was clearly no intention to offend anyone.”

 

But Ross himself was clearly embarrassed as he tried to wriggle out of his latest gaffe when he was confronted by the News of the World at his £3 million home in Hampstead, North London, last night.

 

At first his wife Jane answered the door and insisted he had done nothing wrong. But when we asked if Ross was hiding behind his wife he came to the door and said: “I hope no one has been upset by the show.

 

“It was a kind of light-hearted remark about giving her a cuddle.

 

“It wasn’t ‘give her one’—I meant, ‘Give her one last cuddle.’ You know there was no malice intended. There was no harm intended, OK?”

 

That was at 5.30pm. But two hours later he issued a statement through his public relations expert attempting to wriggle yet further and shift the blame.

 

Tory MP David Davies

 

There’s no way this man should be on air. It’s obscene

 

His second version of what happened said: “It was a spontaneous, light-hearted remark made in response to an anecdote set in Spain, where no one was named or ever likely to hear the broadcast.

 

“As far as I was concerned, the story may even have been apocryphal or exaggerated for comedic purposes, as is common practice on radio and comedy shows across the country.

“Absolutely no offence to any individual was intended and, if the media wasn’t hell bent on stirring up controversy, I’m sure none would be taken.”

 

In fact, the story was completely ACCURATE, as confirmed by Andy Davies’s wife.

 

She also contradicted Ross by pointing out that she—like thousands of other ex-pats who listen in on the internet—heard the whole show perfectly clearly at her Spanish home.

 

 

PREVIOUS VICTIM: Sachs, 78

Strangely her husband, who commutes from Spain to London, last night claimed in a statement issued through Radio 2 and approved by senior BBC bosses: “It is completely untrue to suggest that I was referring to a real individual on the programme, nor would I have told such a story about anyone suffering from dementia.

“The story was poetic licence based on the warm and affectionate behaviour experienced in Spanish village life. I did not identify an individual because there isn’t one.”

 

Yet three hours earlier, in a phone interview with the News of the World, his wife Abigail had confirmed she actually KNOWS the woman, she DOES have Alzheimer’s and even gave us the pensioner’s name.

 

She is well-known to locals but we are keeping her identity secret to protect her privacy.

By putting Beyer’s mugshot alongside the likes of David Blunket it The News Of The World make him out to be man of great importance and influence on broadcasting and the voice of everyone in Great Britian.

It’s hilarious because chances are Beyer would have banned most of the things News Of The World readers like to look at. Like pictures of scantily clad women for example.

Beyer and Mediawatch UK campaign against nudity and would probably deam the Page 3 topless pictures in the NOTW’s sister paper The Sun as “pornography” which corrupts public morals and turns people into rapists.

Yet both The NOTW and The Sun present Beyer as if he represents their views and that of their readers.

Hilarious!

Of course Beyer himself cannot see the obvious irony of using a newspaper which peddles sex and tits to boost his own publicity. But of course he’s so eager to get himself in any newspaper he doesen’t think about all that.

As for Jonathon Ross he’s giving the tabloids and the moral guardians what they want.  Or at least giving them something to twist into yet more national moral outrage for their own ends and agendas.

Beyer happy with censored Ross return

A shame really as he probably would have preffered Ross to be effing
and blinding all over the shop and spewing smut and filth every five
minutes just so he can have something to bleat about.

From the Melon Farmers:

Jonathan Ross censored for his return in the press spotlight

Based on article from dailymail.co.uk

Jonathan Ross was heavily censored when his chat show was aired on
Friday night.

Despite swearing several times and making a series of crude remarks
during the pre-recording of Friday Night with Jonathan Ross on
Thursday morning, Friday’s broadcast of his chat show was radically
toned down, with all of Ross’s bad language and sexually suggestive
remarks cut from the final version of the programme.

Ross twice directed ‘fuck’ at Tom Cruise, one of the guests on the
show, during the pre-record.

He also swore at the comedian Lee Evans, another guest of the show,
who used the word ’shit’ shortly after he came on. In response, Ross
said: Don’t come on here with your ‘fucking’ foul mouth. This is a
brave new world.

All of Ross’s swear words were cut from the programme when it was
aired on Friday night.

During the pre-record, Ross also asked Cruise to feel his right
biceps, before claiming that his right bicep is better toned thanks
to what he does with that hand. This was also cut from the final
version of the show.

Ross also made several joking references to Russell Brand, all of
which were cut from Friday’s broadcast.

John Beyer, the director of the pressure group Media-Watch UK, said:
The BBC would have been very foolish to continue giving a completely
free rein to Jonathan Ross. Let’s hope this brings a more sensible
approach to this sort of programme and that viewers’ trust in
broadcasting is restored.

“Let’s hope this brings a more sensible approach to this sort of
programme and that viewers’ trust in broadcasting is restored.”

Or rather Mediawatch UK’s trust in broadcasting is restored eh?

Ross enrages Daily Mail again with pensioner sex joke

He forgot to mention she is a hard working tax paying pensioner of course.

From the Mail On Sunday

New calls for Jonathan Ross to be sacked after he makes sick joke about sex with a pensioner on his radio return

By Miles Goslett

Back on air: Jonathan Ross leaving home yesterday to present his Radio 2 show

Jonathan Ross has walked into a fresh row on the day he returned to Radio Two after he made crude remarks  about sleeping with an 80-year-old woman.

The BBC was today fending off calls for Ross to be sacked after yesterday’s broadcast – his first following a 12-week suspension for his conduct in the Andrew Sachs affair.

Ten minutes after the live show began, Ross and his co-presenter Andy Davies talked about how they had spent the past three months, when Ross was suspended from the BBC.

Davies said that he had been doing some DIY at his house in Spain, and referred to an `older woman’ who lives nearby who `keeps trying to kiss me…she must be about 80, I reckon’.

Ross replied: `Oh God. I think you should, just for charity. Give her one last night, will you? One last night before the grave. Would it kill you?’

It also became clear yesterday that in the 35 hours between Ross’s Friday-night BBC1 chat show being recorded and broadcast, executives carefully edited the content to ensure the controversial host put across an appropriate balance of contrition and wit.

Ross was suspended without his £6million-a-year salary after he and comedian Russell Brand left obscene messages on the answerphone of
78-year-old actor Andrew Sachs during Brand’s Radio 2 show in October.

Last night Conservative MP Philip Davies, who sits on the Commons Culture Select Committee, said of his remarks about the elderly woman: `Everyone knows what Jonathan Ross is like, particularly now.’

The BBC said today there was ‘clearly no intention to offend anyone’ with the joke.

A BBC spokesman said: ‘Regular listeners will be familiar with Jonathan’s irreverence and innuendo.

‘This light-hearted exchange contained no offensive language, named no individuals and there was clearly no intention to offend anyone.

‘Nothing broadcast by the BBC was linked to a specific individual or would allow the public to link these comments to an individual.’

Jonathan Ross arriving at the BBC’s Western House Studios to present his first Radio 2 show since returning from a three-month suspension

But MP Mr Davies said: ‘Certainly the BBC are well aware. If you employ Ross, this is what you can expect from him and this is what you’ll always get from him. My view is that he should have been sacked three months ago.’

John Beyer, director of pressure group Mediawatch UK, said: `It’s ultimately for BBC director-general Mark Thompson to say whether this sort of innuendo and suggestion is what he had in mind when he gave Jonathan Ross his last chance back in October. The BBC has to establish boundaries of acceptability.’

Ross arrived at the Radio 2 studios in Central London yesterday wearing sunglasses and a dark three-piece suit with brown leather cuffs. He carried a messenger bag by designer label Prada, costing about £210.

During his three-hour programme, he appeared to make light of the controversial subject of teenage girls – including his daughter – watching men kiss each other.

Jonathan Ross with Russell Brand:The prank calls made to Andrew Sachs by the pair were “an act of broadcasting madness”, said Director of BBC Vision Jana Bennett

As he interviewed fellow BBC presenter Graham Norton, who is starring in a West End adaptation of gay comedy La Cage Aux Folles, Ross said that his daughter, who is 16, was `very much into gay culture generally’.

He added: `I think, like lots of young girls, she likes seeing boys kissing, for some reason. They love seeing boys kissing.’

Sounding surprised, Norton asked: `Really?’

Ross said: `Yeah. It’s the big thing, Graham.’

A BBC spokesman said it had received 18 complaints about the show. And a further 166 people have protested to the BBC about Ross being chosen to present the Bafta awards next month.

In a statement, the BBC said: `Some viewers are unhappy that Jonathan Ross will be presenting this year’s Baftas. This will be his third year presenting the awards, and the decision to use him as the host was taken long before his suspension.’

BBC1 executives cut several crude remarks from his Friday-night chat show before it was broadcast.

The studio audience heard Ross tell his guest Tom Cruise, in response to the actor’s admission of a hectic schedule: `You should get yourself suspended. Russell Brand is in town tonight. Let’s go out in town and get suspended.’

Ross made several other references to Brand during the recording, and images of Brand appeared on screens, but his name or face were not deemed fit to appear in the version that was broadcast.

One audience member said: `I was amazed when I walked into the studio to see a huge screen suspended above the stage showing Jonathan Ross interviewing Russell Brand.’

Take away the ‘daring’ and it’s just an old-fashioned showbiz plug show

 

 

Libby Purves

So he’s back, the flop-haired popinjay – emerging on to his brothel-tinted set with a Sixties showbiz lope, blow-dried and trim in a maroon suit and nervous smirk.

You had to feel sorry for him. Well, a bit. Jonathan Ross’s trademark is – to quote Robert Robinson’s wonderful phrase about DJs – `behaving like a universal favourite on mere assumption’. Every move, every tic, every grin says: `Aw, c’mon, you have to love me.’

He must have been shaken in recent months by the revelation that a lot of people don’t. He has a gift: a quick brain and a talent for prattling cheek which forces guests to laugh or look stupid.

So they laugh, and everyone likes to see A-listers laughing. It makes up for the fact that they’re not telling you anything new.

But Ross’s problem has been a growing genital obsession normally found in under-sevens. So the love ebbed, to be replaced by irritation at his crazy salary and at the BBC for not reining him in.

On that strange night in October, the sound of a middle-aged married man egging on his oversexed younger colleague to cruelty was his downfall. Auntie BBC finally showed her teeth. Oh, and her scissors.

Since three national newspapers went to the trouble of infiltrating reporters into last week’s recording, we have a pleasing insight into what was cut.

We didn’t get to see him saying `f***’ to Tom Cruise, nor claiming that his right bicep is better toned thanks to what he does with that hand.

Nor did they leave in references to Russell Brand and the suspension, the suggestive sausage question to Stephen Fry, or a joke about Ross’s wife and a condom.

Fair enough. Studio audiences queue in the rain. You can’t really blame the BBC for putting on a smuttier show for a few dozen faithful than for the living-room.

But what we can judge, after this break, is how good it actually is. Take away the `daring’ and it is an old-fashioned showbiz plug show.

Ross is, beneath the cheekie-chappie veneer, a very sycophantic interviewer. His technique is to pour a quart of Oscarish treacle over his guests and then suddenly ask them about bodily functions and make amusing faces.

There has been a lot of absurd speculation about A-listers refusing to come on after the scandal. Oh, get real – it’s a mainstream showcase,  all appearance fees and pre-agreed clips. This is showbiz. They’ll come.

And they’ll laugh, to prove they are sports. The smuttiest moment that escaped the censor was Ross laboriously working the subject round to farting, and asking Cruise whether he does it in bed with his wife. Cruise coped fine.

He does his own stunts – he can handle some weird Brit with a faecal obsession.

So far Ross has not been trusted near a female lest he proposition one, as he did Gwyneth Paltrow. But this week he has Glenn Close and Lily Allen.

Both of them, unlike Paltrow, have probably got enough bottle to slap him. Now that would be great telly.

The full shocking transcript

Andy Davies: There’s a woman in the village who’s getting on a little bit, keeps trying to kiss me. Older woman. Very older woman. So I’m trying to do my brick work work and she keeps coming up. Chatting away to me. Can’t understand a word she says. And she keeps grabbing me. Every time I see her I have to run indoors.

Jonathan Ross: She actually grabs you.

Davies: Hmmm.

Ross: And how powerful is the kiss that she attempts?

Davies: She’s apparently got a thing for younger men.

Ross: Good heavens above. It must be slim pickings in that village.

Davies: So I’m there with my trowel in my hand.

Ross: Well that’s the thing right there.

Davies: That’s what it is. I haven’t got the belt.

Ross: You can picture it now, ladies and gentlemen. Him sitting out there stripped to the waist, hey. Stripped to the waist. Trowel in one hand, hey, lump of cement in the other. Looking magnificent. Sun glinting off what was once a proud chest and is now glooping somewhat. And an old lady comes over.

Davies: She must be about 80, I reckon.

Ross: Eighty, oh God. I think you should, just for charity. Give her one last night, will you? One last night before the grave. Would it kill you?

 

All the usual supects are here. John Beyer and a Tory MP.

Hardly anyone probably heard it.

Preety tastless stuff but it’s starting to look like The Daily Mail and Ross have some sort of deal going on here. He provides them with something to spew moral outrage about and they give him free publicity.

Well it’s not really likely but hey conspiracy theories are always worth a thought or two.

Tossing rocks at Jonathon Ross

Brian Reade gets it spot on again!

From the Daily Mirror:

Tossing rocks at Jonathan Ross

By Brian Reade 22/01/2009

Why are certain sections of the media demanding Jonathan Ross kicks
off his TV return tomorrow with a grovelling apology?

Did they deliberately miss him saying this, days after he insulted
Andrew Sachs: “I am deeply sorry and greatly regret the upset and
distress that my juvenile and thoughtless remarks have caused. It was
a stupid error of judgment on my part, and I offer a full apology”?

When Tony Blair said sorry for every ill from the potato famine to
slavery these same moralisers told him to stiffen his lip and get a
grip.

Yet with Ross it seems that nothing short of coming on in Sachscloth
and ashes and flagellating himself with a cat-o-nine-tails for an
hour or two will do.

Here’s a dare, Rossy. Open up with “Hello, hello, it’s good to be
back”. Then sit back and wait for the hysterical calls for your head
on the grounds that you deliberately chose to glorify a paedophile.

“Here’s a dare, Rossy. Open up with “Hello, hello, it’s good to be
back”. Then sit back and wait for the hysterical calls for your head
on the grounds that you deliberately chose to glorify a paedophile.”

Loooooooool! Oh we can see it now! It would go along the lines of
something like this…

THE DAILY MAIL
OUTRAGE AS ROSS GLORIFIES PEADO GLITTER!

Campaigners and taste and decency groups were outraged when Jonathon
Ross opened the return of his chatshow with It’s Good To Be Back by
peadeophile Gary Glitter.
John Beyer from Mediawatch UK said “This just goes to show that the
BBC should not be giving Ross a second chance. He should be sacked
immediatly and the government should intervene to stop our licence
fee money being paid to presenters who glorify peadeophiles!”

DAILY MAIL COMMENT

How disgusting that Jonathon Ross marked his comeback by arriving to
the tune of It’s Good To Be Back by peadeophile Gary Glitter.
This just goes to show how the BBC is run by a bunch of wet, Guardian
reading librels who love peadeophiles, criminals and illegal asylum
seeking benefit scrounging immigrants.
Burn your licence fees now for the good of Great Britain and the
Queen!

Daily Mail spluttering over Ross’s return

It goes without saying the Daily Mail won’t be happy until Jonathon Ross has apologised to them and everyone of their permanently offended readers and sworn aligence to the saint Mary Whitehouse!

They’ve been publishing a lot of hot air over Ross’s return to our screens. Here’s one article that perfectly encaptures the Mail’s agenda.

From the Daily Mail:

Yes, I’ll be watching Wossy tonight – still waiting for that heartfelt apology and a display of genuine remorse. Some hope!

By Tom Utley

 

The best way to register our disapproval of Jonathan Ross, of course, would be to switch off our sets or watch something else when he returns to the BBC tonight after his three-month suspension. But I’m not going to practise what I preach and I don’t suppose many others will, either.

In fact, I’ll be surprised if his comeback programme doesn’t attract a rather bigger audience than he used to command before his suspension (and, yes, I realise that by drawing attention to his return, I’m probably swelling it further).

But I’m confident that Ross is not stupid enough to interpret any increase in his ratings tonight as a sign of his popularity – and still less will he take it as an indication that his viewers are on his side in the Andrew Sachs affair. Whatever else he may be, Ross is no fool.

Jonathan Ross: You can register your disapproval at his actions simply by switching off the TV

 

He’s well aware that among us will be huge numbers who are simply curious to judge for ourselves how he handles the extraordinarily difficult dilemma on whose horns he has impaled himself.

For months, we’ve been wondering which option he would take: would he show genuine contrition for his revolting antics on Russell Brand’s radio show – indeed, did he recognise how revolting they were? Or would he make light of his offence, perhaps appearing in sackcloth and ashes or allowing his guests to make jokey references to the scandal?

If he went for the first option, making a convincing display of contrition, he would surely disappoint many of his core audience, who enjoy a bit of cruelty and smut. He would also undermine his reputation for being the naughtiest boy in the class. Wasn’t it always rather the point of Wossy that he was ‘incowwigible’?

Indeed, long before the Sachs affair, the BBC said in answer to earlier complaints about Ross’s language and conduct: ‘The irreverent nature of the show is a large part of what makes it so popular.’ If he chose to jettison that large part, what would be left – apart from a dreary series of plugs for films and books?

If, on the other hand, he made light of his offence, then he would further enrage and insult the 42,000 licence fee payers who complained about his treatment of Sachs – and millions of others, including me, who found it deeply offensive but didn’t complain.

 

So which was it to be? Like so many observers of Wossy and all his works, I decided he’d probably try to have it both ways, as he did in 2005 when he unctuously accepted an OBE from the Queen (ironically, for ’services to broadcasting’) – and then, in an effort to re-establish his ‘cutting edge’ credentials, insulted her by playing the Sex Pistols’ version of God Save The Queen (‘her fascist regime’) on his Radio 2 show.

On that evidence, my guess was that he’d put on a passable show of contrition while at the same time making a joke of it – like a pupil apologising to the headmaster in front of the whole school, with his fingers crossed tightly behind his back to amuse his mates.

As I say, I’ll judge for myself tonight. But the reports from yesterday’s recording of the show suggest I was plumb right. OK, I was wrong about the sackcloth and ashes (in fact, he wears a bright red suit and a white shirt). But he does indeed try to have it both ways.

After a series of jokes about George Bush, he pulls a ’seriously, folks’ face and says: ‘I’m going to take this opportunity to apologise for what I said on the radio because being on the BBC and being allowed this level of freedom to communicate openly to people is a great privilege and is something I’ve always enjoyed and I value enormously, and in future I do intend to be more aware of the responsibility that comes with such a gift.

‘As the kids say, “it was my bad” [you're not a kid, Ross, you're 48] and I do apologise for any hurt and distress it caused.’

 

Russell Brand: At least he doesn’t work for the BBC any more

Hardly are the words out of his mouth, however, than he’s effing and blinding again, as if nothing had happened, while facetiously rebuking comedian Lee Evans for swearing, telling him we’re in a ‘brave new age’.

Before long, he’s asking Tom Cruise if he breaks wind in bed with his wife, joking about masturbation and making frequent lighthearted references to Russell Brand. Meanwhile, as camp as ever, Stephen Fry announces: ‘I’m very happy to help you get off the naughty step.’

According to one of Ross’s devoted fans: ‘It was really funny. Everyone was a bit surprised when he made the apology. Stephen Fry made a couple of jokes about it and everyone laughed.’

Of course, we don’t know how much of the show, or how many of the expletives, will hit the cutting-room floor before tonight’s broadcast. But, oh, how cosy and chummy it all sounds – and how clear the underlying message that licence fee payers were making a huge fuss about not very much, that bygones should be bygones and that Wossy should carry on very much as before, with the merest token effort to tone down his act. Except that surely – surely - he can’t be allowed to go on like this?

It’s one thing for Russell Brand to make a huge joke of the Sachs affair on his so-called Scandalous! tour of provincial theatres. Certainly, it’s nauseating to see him cashing in (to the tune, it’s said, of some £500,000) on his prank of tormenting an elderly actor by leaving obscene messages on his answering machine. But at least Brand doesn’t work for the BBC any more and nobody is obliged to buy tickets to his show.

In contrast, every TV owner in the land, apart from the over-75s, is obliged to buy tickets to Friday Night With Jonathan Ross, whether we watch it or not. As he rightly says in his apology, he enjoys quite extraordinary privilege and this does indeed lay huge responsibilities on him – not least of which is to show some respect for his paymasters and not to outrage the public’s sense of decency.

He may like to pose as an anti-establishment figure. But, like it or not, Jonathan Ross OBE is the establishment. For heaven’s sake, he’s the highest-paid public servant in Britain, earning literally twice as much as the man on whom that title is usually bestowed, Royal Mail chief executive Adam Crozier – and more than 30 times as much as the Prime Minister. In his position, he just can’t go on having it both ways.

Tom Cruise during recording for Jonathan Ross’ comeback broadcast

 

Like so many of us, I felt a surge of relief at the huge public outcry over his treatment of Mr Sachs. I remembered how I’d winced in distaste when Ross asked David Cameron if he’d had sexual fantasies about Margaret Thatcher in his youth, and again when he informed a politely smiling, though clearly distressed, Gwyneth Paltrow that she was a MILF, explaining that the letters stood for ‘Mother I’d Like to F***.’

The reaction to the Sachs affair, the straw that broke the camel’s back, showed me that there were millions of us who felt the same – not because we were middle-aged and pompous, with a defective sense of humour, but because Ross himself was a clever yet humourless bully with a monstrously high opinion of himself and utter contempt for the poor saps who are forced to pay his outrageous wages.

With the great majority of us, I believed the scandal would mark a turning-point – not only for Ross himself but for the entire BBC, which would have to stop insulting us and have a serious rethink of the responsibilities of a public service broadcaster.

All I can say, on the strength of the reports from the recording studio, is that Ross himself doesn’t seem to have got the message at all. Indeed, with almost every breath he draws, he seems to be telling everyone who doesn’t like his smut to f*** off.

As for Auntie Beeb, if she’s learned anything at all from the affair, she had better get busy with her scissors before tonight’s broadcast. Better still, she should accept that Ross is indeed incowwigible – and sack him, without a penny of compensation, for bringing one of the country’s best-loved institutions into the deepest disrepute.

 

“The best way to register our disapproval of Jonathan Ross, of course, would be to switch off our sets or watch something else when he returns to the BBC tonight after his three-month suspension”

Well yeah. But then people who dissaprove of Jonathon Ross wouldn’t be able to get offended. But then again they would because even if they didn’t watch his show tonight they would have the Daily Mail to tell them what he said and then they could be offended.

“Like so many of us, I felt a surge of relief at the huge public outcry over his treatment of Mr Sachs. I remembered how I’d winced in distaste when Ross asked David Cameron if he’d had sexual fantasies about Margaret Thatcher in his youth, and again when he informed a politely smiling, though clearly distressed, Gwyneth Paltrow that she was a MILF, explaining that the letters stood for ‘Mother I’d Like to F***.’

The reaction to the Sachs affair, the straw that broke the camel’s back, showed me that there were millions of us who felt the same”

 

Millions? More like a few thousand who have nothing better do than complain about something they’ve niether seen or heard but just read about in the Daily Mail.

 

“he would surely disappoint many of his core audience, who enjoy a bit of cruelty and smut.”

 

His core audience who if the Daily Mail had it’s way wouldn’t be allowed to have a Television.

 

“Better still, she should accept that Ross is indeed incowwigible – and sack him, without a penny of compensation, for bringing one of the country’s best-loved institutions into the deepest disrepute. “

 

And that’s what the Daily Mail want! And they’ll never be happy until it happens. So Ross may as well just skip the apologies and just tell this shitty newspaper and their readers to go fuck em selves. It will give them something else to be outraged about and he can stay on TV and everybody wins!

 

It was always highly predictable that the Daily Mail would have their journalists watching Ross’s show tonight in order to monitor everything he says so the slightest transcretion can be turned into yet another public outrage and be used as yet another stick with which to beat the BBC.

Islamic wackos try to ban Rihanna in Malaysia

They can’t just not go and see if they don’t like her. Nah they have
to try and stop everyone else from going to see her.

From the Melon Farmers:

Call to ban Rihanna from performing in Malaysia

Based on article from indexoncensorship.org

The Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS) is demanding that authorities
ban R&B star Rihanna’s concert to be held in Kuala Lumpur on 13
February.

PAS alleges that her revealing outfits and suggestive dance moves are
an insult to Asian values and outrage local cultural mores.

According to Kamaruzaman Mohammad, a leader of the youth wing of PAS
claimed that attending the concert is a form of support for Israel:
Whether Rihanna realises it or not, we know that the taxes she paid
also contributed to the war in Gaza.

“According to Kamaruzaman Mohammad, a leader of the youth wing of PAS
claimed that attending the concert is a form of support for Israel:
Whether Rihanna realises it or not, we know that the taxes she paid
also contributed to the war in Gaza.”

Oh right. So if they can’t get the government to ban her they’ll use
emotional blackmail to stop people going to watch her.

Mediasnoops thinks what Israel is doing in Gaza is an outrage but
this is just bollox!

ASA rule in favour of “No God” ad

For once the ASA gets it right.

From The Telegraph courtesy of the Melon Farmers:

Atheist bus adverts given green light by watchdog despite 326 complaints The atheist bus adverts that declare “there’s probably no God” have been given the green light by the advertising watchdog, despite attracting hundreds of complaints. By Martin Beckford, Religious Affairs Correspondent So far, 326 people have objected to the posters that have been placed on 800 buses around the country Photo: WENN So far, 326 people have objected to the posters that have been placed on 800 buses around the country, which state: “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” Some claimed the adverts were offensive while others said that their central claim about God’s existence could not be substantiated. A Christian bus driver has also refused to get behind the wheel of a vehicle bearing the slogan. The Advertising Standards Agency, the industry watchdog, has admitted that the adverts go against the beliefs of many people. But it has decided that they do not breach any part of its code and is not launching an investigation – which could have led to the posters being taken down – into the unprecedented £140,000 advertising campaign by atheists. The decision is a victory for the British Humanist Association, which organised the campaign, as it had insisted the posters were only intended to reassure non-believers and not mock the religious. The slogan was created by Ariane Sherine, a comedy writer, as an antidote to posters placed on public transport by Christian groups that “threaten eternal damnation” to passengers. The ASA said in a statement: “The Advertising Standards Authority has concluded that the ‘There’s probably no God’ bus ad campaign by the British Humanist Association is not in breach of the advertising code. The ASA will therefore not launch an investigation and the case is now closed. “The ASA carefully assessed the 326 complaints it received. Some complained that the ad was offensive and denigratory to people of faith. Others challenged whether the ad was misleading because the advertiser would not be able to substantiate its claim that God ‘probably’ does not exist. “The ASA Council concluded that the ad was an expression of the advertiser’s opinion and that the claims in it were not capable of objective substantiation. “Although the ASA acknowledges that the content of the ad would be at odds with the beliefs of many, it concluded that it was unlikely to mislead or to cause serious or widespread offence.” It pointed out, however, that it has banned several adverts that offend religious groups in the past, including a poster for a morning-after pill that referred to “immaculate contraception” and one for Paddy Power, a betting firm, that showed Jesus and his disciples gambling in a pastiche of the Last Supper.

 It’s good to see the ASA has ruled against those who wish to see the advert banned just because they disagree with it’s view.

“Although the ASA acknowledges that the content of the ad would be at odds with the beliefs of many, it concluded that it was unlikely to mislead or to cause serious or widespread offence.”

Exactly! And just because things may be at odds with the beliefs of many it does not mean they should not be allowed. There are some religious people out there who believe that only things which they believe in and agree with should be allowed. Thankfully there are those who disagree.

MPs seek to remove “No God” ad

The controversy over the advert by an atheist group which says “THERE PROBABLY IS NOT GOD NOW STOP WORRYING!” is most humorous.
Christian Voice have attempted to challenge the advert via the ASA by arguing that it is false advertising because it cannot be proven there is no God.
Now it seems some MPs are trying to have the ad removed simply because religious people might be offended by suggestion that there “probably is no God.”

From Mediawatchwatch:

Bus ad draws fire from MPs (and a bus driver)
January 16th, 2009 by Monitor

It’s not only bus drivers keen to prove their piety who are giving a publicity boost to the Atheist Bus Campaign – MPs Gregory Campbell and Bob Spink have each tabled an early day motion against it in parliament.

An early day motion was posted on Monday (reg required) saying the ad made Christians and Muslims feel

embarrassed and uncomfortable

Aw!

They also called on Ministers to “seek to remove” the

religiously offensive and morally unhelpful advertisement

Sir Nicholas Winterton, Conservative MP for Macclesfield, Bob Spink, former Tory and now UKIP MP for Castle Point, Labour MPs Jim Dobbin and David Drew, and Democratic Unionist Gregory Campbell are the names we have gleaned from the reports.

UDATE: (6.25pm) Here is the full early day motion by Bob Spink

Offensive advertisements on public transport
That this House notes that posters with the slogan `There’s Probably No God. Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Your Life’, appear on 800 buses in England, Scotland and Wales, as well as on the London Underground; notes that this causes concern to Christian and Muslim people, many of whom feel embarrassed and uncomfortable travelling on public transport displaying such advertisements and would not wish to endorse the advertisements by using that public transport; regrets that the British Humanist Association backs the campaign; and calls on Ministers responsible for public transport and advertising media to investigate this matter and to seek to remove these religiously offensive and morally unhelpful advertisements.

Ann Cryer (Lab, Keighley) and Marsha Singh (Lab, Bradford West) have added their names to the list of supporters of this one.

The earlier motion by Gregory Campbell goes like this:

No God Advertising
That this House notes the recent advertising campaign based on London buses, There’s Probably No God, the brainchild of the British Humanist Association; also notes the fact that the rationale behind it is that people can be less careful about their lifestyle choices and general approach to life’s consequences by discounting the likelihood of a Creator and an afterlife; and recommends to Christian groups considering alternative advertising approaches to There’s Probably No God to counter it with the simple addition of But What If There Is.

Lee Scott (Con, Ilford North), David Simpson (DUP, Upper Bann), and Ann Winterton (Con, Congleton) added their godly backing to this less censorious but equally deluded one.

 

“this causes concern to Christian and Muslim people, many of whom feel embarrassed and uncomfortable.”

Embarressed and uncomfortable by the suggestion that there probably is no God? Are their beliefs that there is a God that fragile that they can get upset by a meer advert which suggests there probably is not? Oh dear!

“and calls on Ministers responsible for public transport and advertising media to investigate this matter and to seek to remove these religiously offensive and morally unhelpful advertisements.”

How it it offensive? Oh of course, anything which religious people disagree with is “offensive” and therefore should be banned?
Should only adverts which express views that religious people agree with be allowed then?
There you have it in a nutshell folks. Mearly criticisng or expressing the slightest disagreement with people’s beliefs is in the eyes of some MPs an act of offence.
Why don’t we just go back to book burnings and public burnings at the stake of hertics?
Morally unhelpful? Oh the idea that there might be no God might destroy our morals! Oh hell and damnation for us all!

“also notes the fact that the rationale behind it is that people can be less careful about their lifestyle choices and general approach to life’s consequences by discounting the likelihood of a Creator and an afterlife.”

So we all need to believe in a Creator and an afterlife to be careful about our lifestyle choicies do we?

“and recommends to Christian groups considering alternative advertising approaches to There’s Probably No God to counter it with the simple addition of But What If There Is.”

Well why don’t they? Better than trying to get this ad banned!