Jonathan Ross returns...

Again,many of you are missing the point.
It is not the rights or wrongs of what Thatcher said but the severity of the punishment in comparison with the Ross case.
It's all too easy for the usual suspects on here to bleat, sheep-like, that it's just a typical Daily Mail witch-hunt.
Far from it - there appears to have been a spontaneous response from many BBC viewers to complain about the treatment of someone they obviously hold in some regard and affection.
I just happen to think the Corporation has shown poor judgement on this by acting in haste and with undue harshness - the complete opposite of how they treated Ross.
And many of the people I know who work within the BBC happen to think exactly the same.

You must surely accept that, having been so heavily criticised for a slow and weak response last time by people who share your view, they were bound to take a stronger line this time?

Would it not be true to say that had they fudged the issue once more you would have accused them of learning nothing?

HOLD IT! Did I just read some quasi-name dropping?

I didn't miss the point - it was in the closing point of one of my posts - racism vs. misfired humour, misfired humour wins every time. Particularly since the three individuals solved their problem with each other before the media witchunt.

This is something Thatcher is clearly using as a shameless publicity and anti-BBC stunt, rather than just accepting what she said wasn't appropriate for a conversation on work premises.

The problem is in comparison of the two cases.
Thatcher's comment was made in private and while it's old-fashioned and crass it was made in private and if it had not been Carol Thatcher would probably have been dealt with in a much less sensationalist way.
I'm also slightly bemused about the facts behind this - originally it was reported that she made the comment in front of just two people, Jo Brand and Adrian Chiles.
It then transpired that " dozens " of people were in attendance and all equally outraged.
The fact that Thatcher refused to make a public mea culpa over a matter that had by then been blown out of all proportion makes me wonder about the context of the remark.
Whatever the rights and wrongs there is considerable disquiet among the BBC staff I know about how this matter was dealt with, the whole Orwellian culture at the Corporation about exactly what is and isn't the current thinking and about how Ross is safely ensconced back in his job quite clearly believing that he did nothing wrong when in fact he damaged the reputation of the BBC far more than a private remark from the daughter of an ex-leader ever could.
And trust me there are few rabid Daily Mail readers amongst them.

[B]

Funnily enough this is an internet forum about television and there are people on here who either work in television or know people who do work in television.
I wish you would engage your brain a little first before rushing into an embarrassing attempt to be clever.

Calm down dear! It's only an internet forum! (Isn't that what your pal Michael Winner said?)

Anyway, the number of people in the room who were outraged is clearly larger than the number of people who complained about the initial Sachs broadcast all those months ago, had Goslett not poked his nose into it.

I maintain that if I were working in an office, and someone came up to me and said "crikey, there's a golliwog playing on the tennis!" I'd be offended, and would be well within my rights to report him or her. Whether I'd do that or not is another case - many people immediately rushed to blame Adrian Chiles, for example, howeever these people have no brains and make assumptions based on whatever piffle they read - but the fact remains it's inappropriate.

Why does a comparison have to be made anyway? They're two separate cases, two different people, two different shows, and two different types of insults. If a comparison were to be made, one could argue that Ross did acknowledge the comments he made were inappropriate, and thus suffered a less arduous punishment (a bit like pleading guilty to a charge in court) whereas Thatch has just continued with her gung-ho, who-gives-a-sh*t attitude.

The bigger issue about the Carol Thatcher case is that the production team who use her services have lost their trust and confidence in her. There's no way she could appear on the sofa opposite Adrian Charles after what happened.

But then contributors to programmes come and go, it's all up to the production team and who's flavour of the month... that's showbiz! It's like the Angus Deayton thing - her position on the programme became untenable

It's less of the case with Jonathan Ross, he did apologise and make amends but also he's not a member of an on-air team, and his peers were almost universally supportive of him.

Yes, what she said was commonly referred to in my youth. I would also describe it as crass. It was said not in private, but in a green room with other members of the team present.



One dozen. Lets not let hyperbole obfuscate this. Three complained. Perhaps it was Chiles and/or Brand themselves? A member of the staff is entitled to make a complaint to the boss over such a thing.



No, she's quite clear about thinking its not offensive so long as you don't mean it to be - which I'm afraid is rather disappointingly specious reasoning on her part.

As for the rest, well, you're certainly entitled to hold Ross in whatever regard you see fit - but one should look at this case on its own merits.

I just feel there was no need for a public trial by media when she could have been let go without any hoo ha.

How do you make an "uncomplaint" to the BBC anyway? Do you just use the complaints form, but say "good on you?"

For the benefit of Showbizguru I repeat (albeit re-worded)...
"The following day, a number of people who had either heard the comment or learned of it, made their feelings known to the show's executive producer who raised the issue with Carol."
...Article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7871746.stm

That article (particularly the extract) suggest that some of those offended were those who were involved with the show, possibly even production team members. If she managed to offend people involved with the show it's quite understandable why the decision was made. Carol is only being dropped from the One Show, not banned from appearing on the BBC as a whole (unlike Ross).

It's interesting that during the Ross saga many of those who complained about being offended were derided for never having heard the original broadcast.
Yet here you're saying that it's quite acceptable for people who never heard the original comment to complain about it.
There's an awful lot of shifting of PC goalposts going on here.

Those additional people weren't "shocked of Milton Keynes", they were staff who would have to work with Ms Thatcher. There's a difference.

But it seems that you're not prepared to discuss the matter without making comparisons to a different story - so that's where I'll leave it.

Good day, Mr Guru.