(no subject)

[webofevil]

This whole Brand/Ross thing has become a monster. It’s a silly season story that has accidentally emerged blinking into the news rush hour. I was going to post yesterday about it, but events ran away from me and suddenly Ofcom was investigating and Gordon Brown was somehow involved. It tickles me that he chose to use the two most hackneyed political terms for expressing disapproval, “inappropriate” and “unacceptable”. Politicians use these words for every damn thing, from genocide to the canteen not carrying their favourite kind of jam. But what’s he doing commenting on this in the first place? What’s next, a furious condemnation from Ban Ki-Moon? An air strike?

The simple truth, though, is that both Ross and Brand are bullies. Both men’s schtick involves a lot of self-deprecation, but it pays not to be charmed or fooled by that—their self-loathing is all too real, and they’re keen to palm it off on to others. Literally, in the case of a friend of mine who, a long time ago, was introduced to Ross as a junior writer. They shook hands in a crowded room, only for Ross to leap back and start yelling, “Ugh! Sweaty palms! He’s got the sweatiest palms! Is that even sweat? Ugh!”^[1] And so on. Territory established. New bug successfully squashed. It’s a fleeting incident, but a revealing one.

Also revealing is my friend’s experience of writing many years ago for a BBC DJ whose show went out live after midnight. The procedure was that the show would be listened through afterwards to check the content. Some of the material was a bit cheeky, but it could take weeks before they got an irritated memo saying, “For God’s sake stop making those jokes”. They rapidly realised that there was a huge backlog of shows to be checked, and they made the most of it. So it wouldn’t be entirely surprising if the Brand show, though pre-recorded, had not been listened to by the time of broadcast for similar reasons. If it was and it was cleared, someone’s definitely for the chop.

But should that include our Russ and our Jon? Of course it should. Never mind nebulous questions of standards of taste or decency in broadcasting; the abusive messages they left on Andrew Sachs’s answerphone actually broke the law. Also, though Ross saw which way this was all headed at the end of last week so apologised to Sachs in writing and sent him flowers (while Brand did not), it’s noticeable that neither man has said anything contrite about Sachs’s granddaughter, the person who has been most badly treated in all this. She’s just the latest in a string of girls who have somehow been seduced by a diamond-cut jaw, a gallon of hairspray and Frankie Howerd’s vocal mannerisms, and have utterly failed to see the truth that is staring them full in the face: don’t fuck Russell Brand.

At best, you could end up as material in one of his trademark too-much-information routines about embarrassing sexual experiences. (Also, does he carry on with that “Hare Krishna” stuff even in intimate situations? Oh God.) Or he might pull a stunt like this and drag your family into it. It would be even worse, although obviously I’m not remotely suggesting that this could possibly have anything to do with him, if someone were—how to code this somehow?—to repeatedly not have sex with, and then be humiliated by, overage boys. Lucky, then, that he has no reputation for doing any such thing.

I was slightly annoyed to discover that the Telegraph (that’s not more code, just the newspaper) had come up with this connection first, but at least they’ve saved me the bother of writing something along these lines myself:

The behaviour of the Bullingdon Club in George Osborne's day was repulsive: arrogant young men, with more money than sense and no one to tell them what to do. They booked strippers, treated women like dirt, and their idea of a good time was an evening of nasty, bullying humiliation. Osborne was held upside down and banged on his head until he obligingly repeated an obscenity about himself. The stories have all the trappings of toffs enjoying themselves.

Yet look at the BBC radio studio last week: young men together, even more money than sense, lots of people around but not one who dared to stand up to them, whose idea of a radio programme was ringing up a 78-year-old and indulging in sexual boasting and nasty, bullying humiliation. Neither Jonathan Ross nor Russell Brand were members of the Bullingdon, but they do share the same sense of mischievous fun. The only difference is, the blades of the Bullingdon paid for it with their own money; Ross and Brand do it with ours. [Telegraph]

Now, I don’t think they should be sacked out of any indignation about the licence fee; I’ll leave that to the Telegraph and the Mail. I think they should be sacked because they have acted like unconscionable cowards and bullies to a man who has more dignity and decency than the pair of them. They’ve been a couple of spiteful bastards and have broken the law into the bargain, and they need to know that that’s not OK just because we’ve all heard of them.

^[1] Note for any younger readers: “Ugh” is what the British used to say in the days before “Eww”. Also, everything used to be in black and white.

Comments

[rhodri.livejournal.com]

It really does seem there's a subset of men - into which fall Ross and Brand - who, in the absence of someone to MAKE them behave decently, just don't understand what "decent" is

If you're surrounded by people telling you how great you are all the time, and you have a pay packet to match, I can imagine it's pretty easy to slip into that mindset. It's like the badly-behaved rockstar thing. It's just no big deal. Sachs accepted the apology, and has said that he's not looking for heads to roll. And that should be that - except his granddaughter is now plastered over the tabloids saying that she thinks heads SHOULD roll, and every anti-BBC crusader is using it as ammunition. Vile. Hate it.

[jimyojimbo.livejournal.com]

If you're surrounded by people telling you how great you are all the time, and you have a pay packet to match, I can imagine it's pretty easy to slip into that mindset.

Not only that, but there's a public market for it. They probably act like that because that's what sells. I have a similar feeling about that Moyles chap. I have literally no idea why he has a show (and the pay packert to match); I find him excruciating, I have that grindin-your-feet-into-the-floor embarrassment reaction within ten seconds. But obviously someone likes it, there's a huge market for this kind of self-important alpha-male bullying nonsense. People will pay money to text in and contribute to it.

[addedentry.livejournal.com]

They probably act like that because that's what sells.

Why Do I Say These Things? (Hardcover) by Jonathan Ross (Author)
Publisher: Bantam Press (16 Oct 2008)

[chiller.livejournal.com]

Well, in fairness they should have apologised to the granddaughter as well. Thus far I haven't seen anyone do that. I can understand why she is so pissed off about it.

I don't think the "surrounded by homage paying lackeys" thing washes as an excuse for bad behaviour. Plenty of people are surrounded by licky types all the time and yet don't descend into bullying. I don't think it's worth all the fuss that's kicked up over it, but equally I don't think bullying should be accepted as mainstream humour.

[rhodri.livejournal.com]

I wasn't excusing it. Just explaining it.

[chiller.livejournal.com]

I know. ;) I think jimyojimbo's point is a good one as well: there IS a market for this sort of behaviour. This type of humour is actively supported. Pretty much like Jim Davidson is/was. People, eh? *sigh*

[the-magician.livejournal.com]

Apologised to the grand-daughter ... hmmm, while I dislike intensely what they said to Mr. Sachs, as far as I can tell the grand-daughter is a grown-up who chose to sleep with Russell Brand, and I'm not sure what Russell and Jonathan have said/done that requires an apology *to her*.

Did I miss something?

Oh, I agree they should apologise to Mr.S and his family, including the grand-daughter, for the publicity and for what they said, but only because of how it affected Mr.S and not because she slept with RB. She made her bed I'm afraid ... unless there was an agreement of privacy between them that he violated of course.

Before this, if _she_ had gone to the newspapers and said she'd slept with Russell Brand, would *he* have deserved an apology?

And yes, what they said/did was appalling, but it should never have been broadcast. There has been a failure in the BBC's procedures and if anyone should be sacked, it's the producer/whoever that allowed it to go on air. The presenters of course should (and apparently have) apologise to Mr.Sachs because they went too far ... though that is part of what they are liked for, skating on thin ice and near the edge .. and sometimes it's easy to go a little too far, particularly when you're engaged in "one upmanship" with someone very similar (as they are) so they applaud each other for going that one step further ...it was puerile and offensive, and they should rightly feel contrite about having done it.

All of the above I reserve the right to change my mind about when I have had a chance to think about it!

[chiller.livejournal.com]

Did I miss something?

Yes, a little legal thing called "right to privacy".

[webofevil.livejournal.com]

> that is part of what they are liked for, skating on thin ice and near the edge

To be honest it's not so much the content as specifically the act of leaving personal abuse on Sachs's answerphone. Its a form of attack and if it happens to you you've got no comeback, not when it matters. It's that, far more than the boasting and so on, which warrants a fucking slap.

[uitlander]

Here's a little definition I was taught at University:

A boundah is someone who sleeps with a fellow officer's wife. A cad is someone who brags about it afterwards.

Almost as despicable as pocketing someone's change in a pub ;-)