I was a bit worried about the lack of coverage of the Ross, Brand and Sachs affair so have waded in despite having no first hand knowledge of what's going on. There's an excellent piece at the Telgraph's website by Neil McCormick where he points out amongst other things that Brand's listeners on Radio 2 are also license fee payers:
The notion of the BBC as a public service broadcaster is being much cited, with rather old fashioned concepts of how it should be upholding some kind of moral code. But everyone pays the license fee, including Ross and Brand's vast legions of fans. Some people actually want edgy, reprehensible humour on their radios and TVs, and would be more offended by the stuffy blandness of most BBC output. Maybe we should start emailing Jonathan Dimbley, and demanding he get a bit more saucy?
My favourite bit though are the comments, some are relieved that some journalists are prepared to keep the whole thing in proportion, see the other side and so on. The others are patently nutjobs (the best bit "If you think they are acceptable you shouldn't be writing for the Daily Telegraph."):
They shouldn't have been engaged by the BBC in the first place - at any price - not even if they paid to do it. If you think they are acceptable you shouldn't be writing for the Daily Telegraph.
As for your infantile remark about the off switch, where is the off switch for the licence fee, where is the off switch for the hundreds of millions of pounds that are poured into the BBC from the taxpayer's coffers.
Catering to the puerile cretins who appreciate and applaud such behaviour is not my idea of public broadcasting.
Good riddance to Brand and, with luck, to the other moron, Ross.
That told them.
