Here is an excellent demolition of BBC “standards” in 2009.

In defending Mr Ross, then, and allowing him to be paid £18 mllion to ask questions such as whether the Leader of the Opposition had masturbated at the age of 12 while thinking of the then Prime Mnister, the Director-General considered that he was serving the sustenance of citizenship, the promotion of education and the stimulation of learning and cultural excellence: a misjudgment so bizarre that only utter contempt for the charter itself, corruption, delusion, stupidity or abysmal incompetence could explain it.

None of these explanations would suffice to justify his continuance in office.Mr Thompson, the Director-General, said that Mr Ross was ‘outstanding’, among ‘the very best’. He said he gave enormous enjoyment and represented good financial value. What good financial value is to a public corporation which is not profit-making he did not explain in detail; but there is little doubt one might be able to say the same of public executions, were they broadcast, namely that they gave enormous enjoyment and, being cheap to arrange, represented good financial value.

In the very week after his suspension, which suggested that he had been guilty only of an error of judgment rather than of something far worse, and which left him to scrape by on only £4,500,000 of public money that year, he again made a tasteless sexual joke. Speaking on air to his producer, who had claimed while in Spain to have been accosted sexually by a woman in her eighties who lived near his villa there, Ross said, ‘Eighty, oh God! I think you should, just for charity, give her one last night. One last night before the grave. Would it kill you?’ Admittedly in this case Ross did not know that his joke was about a woman who, as it turned out, actually existed and was suffering from Alzheimer’s disease (of which sexual disinhibition is sometimes
a symptom). But he must have known that either she did not exist, in which case the joke was merely pointless and crude, or that she did, in which case it was likely to be
offensive as well as crude.


Well, I sure as heck did not tune in to watch the return of Jonathan Ross to his BBC1 Prime-time Friday night slot. Did you? I read reports that it was his usual combination of vulgarity and narcissism. The thing that gets me is that this vulgarian is paid an absolute fortune care of YOU and ME – the license tax payer – to engage in a weekly exhibition that degrades any sense of standards that the BBC may once have had. Ross is a superb example of all that is wrong with the BBC – but just like his employer Ross does not see that there is even a problem.



So, foul mouthed 40’s something egomaniac adolescent and glittering star within the BBC firmament Jonathan Ross is due to return to our screens, a truly chastened figure! Erm well not!

The Mail reports that “Despite the fuss he caused, provoking an unprecedented 42,000 complaints following his obscene and distasteful ‘prank’ call with Russell Brand to Andrew Sachs, Ross has a simple attitude to the furore – which is that people need to ‘get over it’.” It appears that no extra measures are being put in place to prevent the creation of further offence. ‘The code of compliance is just as it was before,’ confirms a Radio 2 spokesman. And, astonishingly, the BBC claims it has had no extra meetings with the star during which taste and standards were discussed. There will be no extra supervisors in the studios looking over his shoulder and the chain of command will remain just as it was before all the fuss. Even the question of what Ross might say at the Baftas – which will go out before the 9pm watershed – is being regarded with studied nonchalance.

Is anyone surprised? The BBC showed a lamentable lack of understanding of the offence that Wossy caused in the first instance and has made this compounded this ever since by demonstrating a revolting combination of arrogance and contempt for the license-payer.


Not only but also…

Did you read about Wossy and Russell Brands latest on-air prank? These stars in the BBC firmament thought it would be hilarious to make obscene phone calls to 78-year-old Fawlty Towers actor Andrew Sachs. They left a series of lewd messages on Mr Sachs’s answer phone claiming, in shockingly explicit language, that Brand had had sex with his granddaughter, Georgina. Sachs was left deeply upset by the crude calls – which were also broadcast to about two million listeners to Brand’s Radio 2 show.

In a way, such crudity is all we can expect from the likes of Ross and Brand so quelle surprise but the real killer for me is that senior BBC executives cleared the offensive messages for broadcast, even though making abusive phone calls is a criminal offence. The dysfunctionality of the BBC lies not ONLY in sustained left-wing bias but ALSO in unfettered vulgarity – which they make US pay for. The National Broadcaster is a National disgrace and the fact that parasites like Ross and Brand leach of the huge amounts of cash it can provide care of you and me is an outrage that can only be addressed the day the License tax is axed for good.