Just A Minute

On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Martin McCague martingerardmccague@... [just-a-minute] <just-a-minute@...> wrote:

James,

 

I disagree that their humour was edgy.  If you aren’t sacked and are kept on your amazingly lucrative contract when you go over the ‘edge’ then that just reveals that there is no edge.

I think most people would agree that the definition of "edgy humour" is that it's provocative, and that it sails close to the line of offense (or for some people, across it).  To clarify, I don't think the calls to Andrew Sachs were edgy humour -- they were clearly outright deplorable!  I do however maintain that edgy is a style for which the duo were known.  Redefining "edgy" to refer to the consequences of the act is a bit of word play that doesn't really advance either of our arguments.

 

Just a feather bed to cushion your fall. Anyone else in any other workplace would be lucky if they weren’t at least put on probation.

Both Ross and Brand were suspended immediately following the incident.  Ross ultimately for 12 weeks from both radio and TV.  Brand was forced to resign from the BBC, as was BBC 2 controller Lesley Douglas.  After all, the production staff decided to air this pre-recorded show!  These actions are at the very least comparable to being put on probation...

 

Upon return to work Mr Ross was nominated for a BAFTA! Shows how seriously the BBC took this.

Well, to be fair, the BBC aren't responsible for the BAFTA awards and the show was probably submitted before the scandal broke.

 

There were no meaningful consequences.

Jonathan Ross was suspended without pay, Russell Brand and a controller resigned, and Ross subsequently didn't renegotiate his contract (which no double had a financial impact).  The consequences may not have been as severe as some may like but I'm sure they weren't meaningless.

 

Three years later the Savile scandal erupts.

I cannot, on any level, equate this with the Jimmy Savile scandal.  Poorly conceived prank phone calls that, yes, made tasteless reference to Georgina Baillie as a child are not something I'm defending, but Savile is something else entirely.  A man who systemically abused his position to sexually assault innocent children over a span of decades.  Jimmy Savile was a monster.  There is no reason to include Savile in a discussion of the Ross/Brand incident, outside of an appeal to emotion.

Well then by your own judgment read Andrew Sach’s interviews (below). I myself would wish to live in a society that looks out for the weak and elderly and young.

This is a loaded statement; I'm not going to speak to looking out for the young, because again, that's not relevant to this discussion.  However, the implication of the second part is that because Andrew Sachs was 78 at the time, he was frail, unable to defend himself and needed to be coddled and protected.  Andrew Sachs has defended himself quite admirably (see the articles that you yourself have posted) and shouldn't be likened to a confused pensioner, caught up in a fake door-to-door sales scam while crooks ransack his home.  Much like Nicholas Parsons, Andrew Sachs is remarkably sharp for his age and is in fact still enjoying a career as an actor with continuing work in both film and television, today.  Andrew Sachs wasn't especially vulnerable because of his advanced years.

 

Allowing Mr Ross onto Just A Minute forgives him and says it was OK and it was a long time ago and everyone has moved on (horrible phrase).

Given that the BBC were willing to renegotiate his contract and he elected not to renew, the act of inviting him onto Just a Minute is quite meaningless; outside of his suspension, he's never been ostracized by the BBC, so this represents no change in policy or position.

 

As you’ll read below the psychological ramifications belie the childhood rhyme of sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.

 

Re-reading the transcripts convinces me that Mr Ross should be banned from BBC radio for life. The fact that sexual taunts to Andrew Sachs involved images of his granddaughter as a child were not treated with the shock they should have been shows a deep malaise within the corporation. They would like to say that Jimmy Savile was a one-off but he didn’t survive for over 40 years by his own cunning alone.

Once again, I find no link between Jonathan Ross and Jimmy Savile.  Tasteless pranks that touch on the subject of paedophilia are not the same thing as paedophilia itself. 

 

This was made all the worse with the fact that Andrew Sach’s wife had broken her hip in the middle of the night of the day they sent these messages. He’s in shock and he’s 78.

Is there evidence to suggest that anyone involved in Brand's show was aware that Andrew Sachs' wife had broken her leg?  The context of the calls was that they didn't know why Sachs' had failed to appear for the show.

 

Give the guy a break. 

I've not been attacking the guy!

 

Then he has the press camping outside his house asking him for his thoughts. I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s suffering some sort of Post-traumatic shock syndrome.

 

I think that's an extreme conclusion.  He seems to be getting on with his career and doing quite well.  Having worked in television and film for most of his life, I have no doubt he's familiar with the way the press operates.  I'm sure it was an unpleasant experience, but PTSD is pushing it.

 

Andrew Sachs: Ross and Brand have ripped my family apart

Look, the thing that's torn the family apart isn't the calls themselves, it's the revelation that Georgina Baillie has been a burlesque dancer and adult model, a fact that her grandparents aren't proud of.  That they found out in this manner is absolutely horrific and won't have made the revelations any easier for anyone concerned.  However, this rift between family members isn't solely because Brand and Ross made those calls.  It's amusing to me that two of these articles were published in the Mail, a paper that no doubt would have been first to press with righteous indignation had they uncovered the lifestyle choices of Sachs' granddaughter themselves.

When you're in the public eye, these sorts of things have a way of getting out.  Brand and Ross were a catalyst, but everyone involved here is an adult and capable of resolving their differences.

 

This next bit is truly depraved. I can just imagine Jimmy Savile saying ‘Now then, now then’.

That's three times you've brought Savile up.  Savile should have gone to jail, but that's really not pertinent.

The BBC's decision on Ross was made and punishment doled out in 2008, and they can't just say "You know, we've changed our minds!" and bar the man from appearing again in 2014.  There comes a time when the incident really does have to be put in the past.  To try to prevent Jonathan Ross from ever working again smacks of vengeance more than it does justice, and I can't get behind that.

--
James R Curry

scratchy@...