please login to something to say on the subject

Peter Tatchell believes it's all a storm in a teacup

quick poll

Do you think the BBC were right to suspend Ross and accept Brand's resignation?

• Yes
  33.3%
• No
  66.7%

Has the BBC buckled over Brand and Ross?

Peter Tatchell

Friday, 31 October 2008

The BBC has caved into the mass hysteria and hypocrisy of a baying, irrational mob. It has suspended radio presenters Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand, prompting Brand to quit. For what? This storm in a teacup was started by two members of the public who complained to the BBC when the programme was broadcast. What gave it legs was sensationalist media coverage, mostly by right-wing journalists who use any excuse to attack the BBC and by the tabloid media, which is obsessed with the trivia and froth of celebrity, lives and misdemeanors. This lurid coverage prompted a herd stampede of manufactured outrage by people who never heard the original programme.

So far, nearly 30,000 members of the public have lodged complaints. How many of them have complained about the BBC's tacit glorification and promotion of greed and nastiness in programmes like The Apprentice and The Weakest Link? Why don't they kick up a fuss when the BBC gives airtime to religious fundamentalists who oppose equal rights for women, gay people and non-believers?

My point is that the public outcry is selective, as is the BBC's heavy-handed response to Brand and Ross. It is totally out of proportion. A few silly, mindless quips have been elevated by mob instinct and moral panic into a supposed national scandal. It has knocked off the front pages the collapse of share prices, fuel poverty, house repossessions and a dozen other serious economic issues that are adversely affecting millions of Britons.

They might be overpaid and sometimes crude and boorish, but did Brand and Ross mock the victims of a train crash? No. Did they reveal personal details that might put someone at risk of violent attack? No. Did they tell racist gags? No. Yes, they went a bit too far but it was not malicious. Their on-air larking-around wasn't meant to hurt anyone, as far I can see.

Jonathan and Russell played a bad taste practical joke on the actor Andrew Sachs and cracked a blue gag at the expense of his grand daughter Georgina Baillie. That's all. I am sorry if they were upset. I would not have said those things myself, but I am not a comedian and, boringly, I am not inclined to risqué ribaldry. The humour of Ross and Brand may have been a bit juvenile and offensive to some people, but surely it was not qualitatively worse than many other gags and pranks broadcast by BBC radio and television with little or no complaint? By treating these two comedians differently, the BBC top brass look like hypocrites.

Some of the BBC's flagship comedy shows, like Mock The Week and Have I Got News for You, regularly include off-colour jokes that upset the people satirised and cause offence to some listeners. Why aren't their presenters being suspended and hauled before the Star Chamber at White City? The crude language of Brand and Ross is no worse than that of many other television and radio performers. What about the sometimes foul-mouthed rants by Jamie Oliver and Gordon Ramsay? Some viewers have complained but they haven't demanded their heads. In contrast, the current sanctimonious, hypocritical mob is screaming that Ross and Brand should be axed. Double standards or what?

Russell's kiss and tell about his brief sexual relationship with Georgina Baillie was expressed in a rather vulgar way and was perhaps a breach of her privacy. But is it worse than the kiss and tell revelations we read every day in the same red top scandal sheets that are now leading the hue and cry against the two hapless presenters? It is not as if Baille is some innocent convent girl. She admits she slept with Brand and she works as a "burlesque dancer" in a group called Satanic Sluts. Yet she claims Brand's jokes have damaged her public image and hurt her feelings. Oh please!

The BBC has apologised, condemning the two comics' antics as "unacceptable and offensive." This is rich coming from the BBC, which until not long ago allowed its music DJs to play records by reggae singers who encourage listeners to murder - yes, murder! – lesbian and gay people. Incitement to murder is a criminal offence, yet no BBC DJs were disciplined let alone prosecuted.

The BBC also broadcast Bernard Manning defending Hitler – and Manning did not even have the excuse that he was clowning around and making a joke. He claimed, in all seriousness: "Hitler was good for Germany at that time. There were eight million unemployed when he took over and he put them on their feet. That's not to say he didn't go the wrong way and went a bit potty in the end." Something of an understatement, I think. Presumably the "potty" bits were the concentration camps and the invasion of most of Europe? Anyway, it was broadcast by the BBC, despite the deep offence caused to Jewish, gay, Roma and disabled groups. No heads rolled.

So why are Ross and Brand being singled out?

For more information about Peter Tatchell's human rights campaigns and to make a donation see: www.petertatchell.net