Morning:
8°c
Attack dog Humphrys hounds his BBC boss
Rashid Razaq, Amar Singh and Nicholas Cecil31 Oct 2008
- Difficult questions ... Sir Michael walks into an ambush
- Ross quits ITV comedy awards as stars back 'scapegoat'
- Blog: Cameron's revenge on Jonathan Ross
- Blog: The BBC's licence to offend
- Corporation attacked for offensive joke about the Queen
- Suspended Ross warned 'never again'
- Who's to blame in the chain of command?
BBC Trust chairman Sir Michael Lyons was lambasted today over the corporation's failings in the Jonathan Ross obscene phone calls row — by one his own presenters.
John Humphrys, the veteran host of Radio 4's Today programme, accused the corporation of acting too slowly and failing to learn the lessons of previous crises, including the Hutton inquiry.
In a stuttering performance, Sir Michael admitted editorial controls had failed and parts of the BBC were still not taking them seriously. He was ambushed by Humphrys, who began the interview by bluntly saying that the Trust had “hardly covered itself in glory.”
Sir Michael said: “We all know when a programme goes too far and clearly the Brand programme went too far.”
He added: “Firstly, we are saying there is a need for further tightening of editorial control. There are still parts of the BBC where editorial responsibility is not being taken seriously enough. There need to be even stricter editorial controls where there is provocative material.”
The Chairman also admitted that Ross had stepped out of line before after Humphrys accused the Trust of allowing standards to slip, bringing up comments made by Ross to David Cameron about whether he had fantasised over Lady Thatcher in an infamous interview from 2006.
Sir Michael admitted: “I don't believe comments like that should be made. But this is not a question of me defining where the boundary lies.”
Humphrys retorted with: “We do that every time Sir Michael. We've had three scandals now in a few months and each time we tighten the editorial controls.”
More than 20 people complained after Mr Ross asked the Tory leader: “Did you or did you not have a w**k thinking, Margaret Thatcher'?” The Corporation had previously stood by the decision to air the remark during the edition of Friday Night with Jonathan Ross in June 2006.
Sir Michael insisted in the heated interview today that he believed the BBC should not back away from provocative material, warning the corporation would fail to reach younger viewers if it did not represent changing attitudes.
But when he was criticised for failing to fill the remit of a public service broadcaster and of mistakenly chasing younger viewers rather than exerting a “civilising influence on the nation” he said: “The BBC Trust is in the process, and will next year address the updating of those guidelines, and we'll do that in conjunction with the public. But we won't back off the BBC's mission to serve everyone in the United Kingdom.
“There is a need for a clear understanding of where the boundaries lie, recognising that it's not a picket fence we can all point to. It is a matter of judgement and if it weren't a matter of judgement, frankly we wouldn't need editors and controllers.”
Former Tory party chairman Lord Tebbit, who at the time criticised the David Cameron interview as “obscene”, welcomed Sir Michael's stance. He said today: “It would have been much easier if they had cracked down and got rid of an overpaid oaf like Jonathan Ross long ago.
The row came as the BBC was criticised today for an offensive comment about the Queen on the BBC 2 satirical comedy programme Mock the Week. When asked to think of something the Queen would not say in her Christmas speech, Scottish comedian Frankie Boyle said: “I have had a few medical issues this year — I'm now so old that my p***y is haunted.”
Tory MP David Davies called for the BBC to be held accountable for the remark, aired on Wednesday.
The BBC said today it had now received more than 35,000 complaints about the obscene messages left by Ross and Russell Brand on the answering machine of actor Andrew Sachs.
Reader views (31)
How about now they weed out the cr*p like EastEnders, which portrays a fake and damaging overly agressive image - people are influenced at a young age by what they see on television and think such anti-social behaviour is normal -well its not.
- Patrick, Singapore, 03/11/2008 07:36
Report abuse
Oh dear - the Mock the Week comment was made ages ago, has already been broadcast before and has been on YouTube for months. Yet again we have "offended from Guildford" getting upset after the event. Perhaps we will have another 30,000 complaints from the "outraged" moral minority. And I have to ask, why watch a programme like Mock the Week if you're going to be offended? Why not just type swear words into Google and spend your life being offended? The UK has to get a grip - there are BIGGER problems in the world.
- Rob Mcnish, Edinburgh, UK, 31/10/2008 17:29
Report abuse
Its time for the BBC to finally get Wid of Woss! How can someone who cannot even speak properly be paid £6m a year as a presenter? - it would be funny if it wasn't so laughable!
- Razah, London, 31/10/2008 16:53
Report abuse
So why does Humpty never ask such pertinent and direct questions, albeit politely, of his and the BBC's New Labour masters?
Humpty lets New Labour's ministers spout their propaganda with never a trenchant follow up question or rebuttal. That is why we are in the mess we are in today. But when a Tory is being questioned, no reply is uninterrupted and Humpty and his mate Numpty's tone betrays their leanings.
Roll on the end of the licence fee, I say.
- Tom Weston, London, 31/10/2008 16:43
Report abuse
I do not appreciate Brand's so called humour nor do I think Ross warrants anywhere near the ludicrous financial package paid to him by the BBC (i.e. us the licence fee payers). However, I do appreciate that some people will value both guys and the BBC is there to serve all of us, not just some of us. However, in this instance, the humour crossed the line of the acceptable. Therefore the culprits must pay, i.e. the Editor in charge must go, Brand (with far less at stake than Ross) has already gone and as Ross will obviously not offer his resignation, the BBC must sack him. I accept that artists (including comedians and entertainers) must be given freedom to be creative and thought-provoking, sometimes by stretching the boundaries of their respective art, but, like the rest of us, they have to assume responsibility for their actions when they lose their ways. The BBC should have the guts to sack Ross immediately. If they don't, then public figures like Ross will continue to believe they are above the law and safe in the knowledge that they can get away with anything. Sorry, no-one can, not even Ross.
- Daniel, London, 31/10/2008 16:14
Report abuse
We are all tired of the puerile behaviour of Jonathan Ross and have never been able to understand why we are forced to pay for it.
- Godfrey, London, 31/10/2008 16:13
Report abuse
I think people using this as a feeble excuse to bully the two presenters now. Russell and Jonathan, if you are reading this I implore you: take the BBC to court for victimizing you and then make them foot the bill for any counselling you need!
- Sarah Bradshaw, Enfield, Middx, 31/10/2008 15:46
Report abuse
The one thing that people are missing - what Brand and Ross did is technically a criminal offence under the 2003 Communications Act. The MPS and CPS, now have a duty to investigate and decide on charges to be potentially faced. If someone other than these two had left obscene messages on someone's voicemail, you can be sure something other than a job suspension would be in order. However, there is still time for charges to be laid and the due process of the law to be pursued.
- Ian, London UK, 31/10/2008 15:42
Report abuse
The credit crunch has hit harder than I thought. Speel checking seems to have given up through lack of funding.
Sorry Peter, couldn't resist it!!
- Peter M, London, UK, 31/10/2008 15:31
Report abuse
Can people please get a grip? Like them or not, Brand and Ross are supremely entertaining broadcasters, and are being treated as whipping boys by all who have an axe to grind with the BBC. It is a tragedy that such sublime talents (and yes, I accept that they overstepped the mark on this occasion) should be sacrificed to satisfy a bunch of whingers.
- Frank, Home Counties, England, UK, 31/10/2008 15:16
Report abuse
Too true Dominic, the BBC think they have the right to do whatever they like - take away the huge fee we pay and see how they cope!
- Michael, London, 31/10/2008 15:08
Report abuse
The controller,Lesley Douglas,has been involved in other questionable incidents at the BBC,and dodged the bullet for those.She just ran out of luck.But it is clear that it is management that sets the tone for what is acceptable behaviour,and she did not set it high enough for the presenters or her other staff.And this is the crux of the BBC's problems-they believe that because they are the BBC,they can and should get away with anything without question.The scandals that have engulfed the BBC include faking competitions;phone-in scandal;the hutton report;shoddy news reporting;lavish corporate lifestyle;poor expense control;plagiarism by senior staff;money being spent with no accountability;the list is endless.And this is on top of the BBC spending our money to buy travel guides for an enormous sum-which has nothing to do with ther remit,and spending a fortune on re-doing their central London premises to pharaonic levels.They are out of control.And a slavish media never takes them to task for it,as everyone in the media secretly would love to work at the BBC,because they know what a cushy number it is.If this(amongst the other many incidents) had happened in a private company,the BBC would be baying for blood.30,000 complaints is not enough.We should all continue to register our complaints until Ross is fired and Thompson is also fired.Neither of them "get it".It is the only way to get some accountability into that organisation,as OFCOM seems to be asleep.
- C.Elder, London,UK, 31/10/2008 14:29
Report abuse
If a private individual had left messages on an answerphone, had it occurred in work time then they would have been sacked. What is a few weeks loss of pay to Jonathan Ross. Surely in his contract there will be smething written about "bringing your employer into disrepute" It seems BBC have lost a darn good manager just to save some idiot. Why should the producer be responsible? They are the two presenters words, not his/hers. At nearly fifty J. Ross should have the brains to know what is acceptable and what is not. Get rid of him please.
What a load of waffle these two men were utering on TV this morning -in order to save J.R.
Amber in Mitcham
- Amber In Mitcham, Mitcham Surrey, 31/10/2008 14:26
Report abuse
Ross "a great all-round presenter" ??!! Theresa, are you trying to be ironic ??? The loser redefines the dictionary definition of "average" at a stroke - he couldn't hold a candle to Parky in his prime. Even allowing for the dearth of interesting "stars" to interview, the man relies on shock to grab an interview. Anyone could do his job, on a fraction of his grossly inflated salary. Paid for by licence payers, incidentally...
- Richard, london, ENGLAND, 31/10/2008 14:20
Report abuse
Hello London,
Please forgive me but people who make comments MUST stick to the point.
The thing that I can't get my head around is this,If the program was recorded by radio 2, and then should of been edited before transmission, how do you do that with a live phone call?.
Mr Andrew Sachs would of still got the messages on the day the program was made, you can-not edit this out only the words spoken in the studio?.
The volcano has blown the top right off the box, and you can thank the two Idiots for that, they are'nt worth the monies paid.
Remember Micheal Barrymore, I.T.V.s top man, where is he now .... they dropped him like a HOT POTATO and although in this case a life was not lost, because of the nature and decency of T.V. in this case these two have hit the decks and its of there own making.
Finally,
The D.G. of the B.B.C. must also fall on his sword, this is his job to keep the Corporation in check, if I were to make phone calls of this nature in works time I would of been gone the same day and would of been charged.
- John L., Scarborough N.Yks U.K., 31/10/2008 14:03
Report abuse
Looks like the credit carnch has turned in to a comedy crunch!
- Peter, london, 31/10/2008 13:59
Report abuse
The only way they're learn is to hit them where it hurts - the pay packet. A few in the BBC still believe they have a god-like right to do what they want - they wouldn't last five minutes in a non-subsidised commercial world
- Dominic, London, 31/10/2008 13:56
Report abuse
I totally agree with Teresa from London.
I heard the show (and indeed have the podcast too!), it was a mistake and to be fair I can imagine it went this far as they maybe sub-conciously knew that as it was not live and that it would be edited? But it wasn't!
The mistake was made, it should NOT have been broadcast, and if the right decision had been made then 3 people would still have their jobs and one little lady would perhaps still have her dignity.
Big shame, both guys are actually good guys.
Si
- Simon Jenkins, Zurich, 31/10/2008 13:48
Report abuse
the controller resigning seems a bit excessive. Sack the senior manager/editor responsible for the producer (also should be sacked - but who obviously didn't have the experience to manage the show) And Brand and Ross - who cares.
I do care that the BBC have spent far too much time on the news on this item. I do not pay my license fee to hear the BBC talk about the BBC - this morning's today programme was very irritating - I think there are far more important things going on: The congo, the continuing financial scenario, the american election to name a few.
Enough already
- Jc, se1, 31/10/2008 13:46
Report abuse
No way should Lesley Douglas have been sacked. If she wasn't on duty at the time then surely what could she have done. The only ones to go would be the culpets themselves (Ross and Brand). How could anyone think it was funny to ring someone up and tell them of their grandchilds sex life. How would Ross feel if someone talked in a lurid manner about his daughters or wife
- Wendy, Southampton, 31/10/2008 13:32
Report abuse
Theresa (and the ES columnist David Sexton):
I know it's a matter of personal taste and highly subjective, but surely you don't believe Messrs Ross and Brand are THAT talented. I'm a bloke and 'only' in my 30's and I'm going to sound like my mother here, but there is very little wit or class about either of them. Both are very overrated and over promoted by the BBC and Ross in particular is foul mouthed and crude. If you want comparisons, Parky's Sunday morning radio programme was a similar format and Parky managed not to be offensive or crude and yet very entertaining. Same goes for television broadcasts where Ross always seems to take a line of questioning on female guests that borders on 'office sex pest' in its nature when the likes of Jay Leno and a large majority of his UK equivalents manage to be entertaining and know the bounds of common manners and decency. Why cant the BBC aspire to these levels of decorum any more?
- Mary Lighthouse, Belfast, 31/10/2008 13:21
Report abuse
The BBC's actions are ludicrous!
What kind of precedent have they NOW set in relation to this matter? What! Anyone else in the future with similar behaviour will now simply be suspended for 12 weeks? For Gross Misconduct this is absolutely absurd!
Persumably there are "employment contracts" at the BBC? What do these "contracts" explicitly state in relation to what has gone on?
- Fraser, Telford Park, 31/10/2008 13:20
Report abuse
I do not like Brand,(his type of 'comedy' or personal traits) I do not know Lesley Douglas,(obviously, very talented & admired within her industry) but I do respect them for doing the honourable thing as a result of this very unsavoury issue. As for Ross, I find his behaviour cowardly, but, only what you would expect from him. It will be very interesting to see how he reacts when he discovers the majority of the population, his peers, and the viewing public hold him in utter contempt! If he thinks 'Joe Public' will quickly forget the issue, and, that he let his fellow colleagues 'carry the can' for him, he will be mistaken, of that I am sure!
- Kevin Sullivan, Roehampton, London., 31/10/2008 13:17
Report abuse
Another passing bandwagon for David Cameron to clamber on board, joined yesterday by Teresa May, who called for a Parliamentary debate on the subject. Still, it served it's purpose because it removed the spotlight from George Osborne. Don't they think there are more important things to debate about. The fact that during the week after this broadcast which was aired on 18 October, only 2 people had seen fit to complain, speaks volumes. Most people didn't even know about the programme until the media jumped out of its pram and printed the offending script for all to read, and mass hysteria ensued. And no, I am not an anything goes kind of person, I am a 70 year old pensioner who presses the off button, or switches to a different channel if anything offends me.
- Val Daniels, Mijas Costa. Spain, 31/10/2008 13:00
Report abuse
I don't agree she has done a good job for the listeners Radio 2 has been on the slide since she took over and she has wasted a lot of "our" money on "names" who have just dumped down what was once my favorite station. Radio 2 used to be about the music now it is about egos.
- Mike Melbourne, Bedford England, 31/10/2008 12:54
Report abuse
People make mistakes Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross got carried away and did something really stupid. Why all the fuss? Haven't we got better things to think about? At the end of the day Jonathan Ross is a great all-round presenter, broadcaster and writer he deserves saving. Russell Brand will go off to America and make lots of money, Britain's loss. The person who should have been sacked is the editor of the programme as it should never have been broadcast.
- Theresa, London, 31/10/2008 12:23
Report abuse
Since it was actually Jonathan Ross who was the first to utter the words about russell brand sleeping with andrew sach's grandaughter why didn't he fall on his sword? Not that we'll miss either of them, its all about ego-interviewing, their ego that is...
- Maria, london, 31/10/2008 11:25
Report abuse
If Ms Douglas genuinely did not hear the show before it was broadcast then it is a great shame she felt compelled to resign. The largely talentless Mr Brand did the right thing and walked, Jonathan Ross should do so too.
It seems typical of many of the UK's problems these days (personal debt/spurious accident litigation/long term unemployed/ binge drinking etc etc), Jonathan Ross has chosen not to take responsibility for his own actions and it reflects very badly on him and his employers.
- Dc, London, 31/10/2008 11:05
Report abuse
Strange how little it takes to take the people's focus of a more deserving focus for their rage/indignation: the people who caused the on-going enormous toxic financial crisis.
Oh well, Ross/Brand, the puerile pair, have given us something else to mutter about this week..
- Susannah, Essex, 31/10/2008 10:49
Report abuse
the management are so scared and confused they are entirely unable to make reasoned decisions. I suggest they are not competent & should resign.
Bring back the exceptional department boss and find someone of suitable calibre to manage the BBC. He could not even suspend Ross via a phone call to his deputy, pending his return from holiday - he came back early to be muddled and flawed.
Sack the producer who passed the entirely unacceptable behaviour. Call the police to caution the presenters, and the legal team to brief all BBC production hierarchy.
Make public apology across all channels and media.
Move forwards - that would require leaving (sacking) Ross and Brand behind, always assuming someone, anyone at the BBC, has warned Ross previously that he treads on the edge of the unacceptably crass and irrepsonsible: That only apparent popularity and viewing figures kept him employed.
I personally complained about Ross' behaviour in the last 2 months - got reply confirming it would be passed up chain of command.
Broadcasters need to help communicate by example what behaviour is acceptable, not constantly to push the boundaries of the acceptable - that is surely the role of 'edgy' stand-up and other commedy. Ross' shows are chat-show, mass-appeal, type stuff, should never have turned into lame, irresponsible, immature, narcissistic, foul mouthed, innuendo laden smut. And I am not saying that Mrs Whitehouse was ever correct in anything she said.
- Sid Snot, Oxford, UK, 31/10/2008 10:47
Report abuse
"Radio 2's popular controller"
I worked in BBC radio nor nearly 10 years....I never heard the R2 controller described as popular - quite the opposite in fact.
- Harry The Hipster, London, 31/10/2008 09:54
Report abuse
