Brand and Ross

Over the post few days the news has been dominated by the BBC's navel gazing over how two of their biggest and brightest managed to create an unholy mess on Radio 2.

It seems to me that given there were only two complaints at the time there are real "free speech issues" here. In effect the BBC has said that because a bunch of Daily Mail (and other right wing tabloid) readers have decided that Ross and Brand were not funny - even when they probably were listening at the time - heads should roll and people should resign or be sacked or suspended.

This type of humour the crank phone call and the practical joke is nothing new. It has in the past not been particularly near the knuckle and has been considered good family fun. Programmes such as "Game for a Laugh" and "Beadles About" from the 80s were based on making fools of the general public and made Jeremy Beadle a major star. Noel Edmonds made it a central feature of his "Noel's House Party" in the 1990s with the "Gotcha Oscars." At current times the "practical joke" has moved into telephone calls with "Fonejacker."

Personally I have never been convinced that this type of humour is funny but then I think Sarah Silverman is funny whereas others find her racist and offensive. I also find "Bottom" hilarious whereas some thing such slapstick is rather childish.

Perhaps Ross and Brand's practical joke was slightly more near the knuckle in its content as many people would probably think talking to someone about their granddaughter having sex is likely to generate offence. However, their main problem was that it was missing the vital ingredient to the airing of all practical jokes - consent. It is normally pretty central to all the above examples that after the event consent has to be obtained and normally the subject sees the funny side. This time consent was missing.

It has been mentioned in passing in a number of television reports that this segment was pre-recorded and a decision could have been taken not to put it on air. I understand that Andrew Sachs asked either directly or via his agent for it not to be aired.

The failure to adhere to this request made the airing of the programme a breach of privacy. For that reason and that reason alone the BBC fell below the standards of broadcasting it should uphold and some disciplinary action perhaps the sacking of the person who ignored the request not to broadcast the segment would be justified.

However, I cannot see how any action against Brand and Ross can be justified if they were nothing to do with that decision. Many people believe to be unfunny and overpaid but many others are big fans and all of their radio and TV shows have significant followings.

It surely cannot be right to focus on whether or not a joke was funny or offensive as a reason for disciplinary action. It is an entirely subjective question and my views on the subject should carry no more weight than anyone else's. Inevitably some humour offends some people. There is plenty of choice out there in the TV and radio market - one only needs to change the channel.

There are a number of racist jokes in "Fawlty Towers" which many people do find offensive even if they were more acceptable when it was made in the early 1970s. Andrew Sach's own character may no doubt cause offence to some Spaniards. The Major refers to the West Indies cricket team as "niggers" and the Pakistani's as "wogs" in one episode. And of course, "Don't mention the War." However, there is a considerable body of opinion that Fawlty Towers was an act of genius and it achieved a top 5 placing (I can't remember where exactly) when the BBC searched for best ever sitcom.

We should therefore stop this attack on free speech and this examination of what is and is not funny or offensive. The offence of the BBC was breach of privacy and one suspects that had very little to do with the presenters and indeed the Radio 2 controller who are all carrying the can.