Jonathan Ross returns...

Given these two statements, might I request you return to the moira thread and reply to the post which you tried to be clever about by using a minor grammatical error to go off on a tangent then when pointed out you were wrong refused to admit defeat?

I'm hoping you will as it was YOU who brought that thread back to the top of the page a few days ago.

Some common sense on the whole reaction from the BBC (and others) to Manuelgate:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/organgrinder/2009/feb/19/chris-moyles-paul-gambaccini-bbc-row

That seems like the usual "PC gone mad" froth there, if you ask me - and I'm pretty sure you wouldn't

"Radio scared if its own shadow"? Rubbish.

If you get criticised for making sneery asides about Auschwitz (in the case of Chris Moyles), then you have to learn to suck it up.

I like Moyles, but I can't blame people for finding his throwaway gag a bit distasteful. But he's neither been sanctioned, nor sacked - so what's the problem?

A bit of responsibility doesn't go amiss in broadcasting. When you put something out on the airwaves, you're inviting a response. The talent broadcasts, some people complain, and the talent is either reprimanded or they are not - depending about what is reasonable and what is not. Why do you find the idea of people objecting to things so outrageous?

And again, I have to say - you remain the only person to suggest that there was nothing wrong with what took place in "manuelgate" - when Ross, Brand and Sachs quite plainly disagree.

So whom are you defending, in that case?

I've never said there was "nothing wrong" with it - I just said it was blown completely out of proportion and in taking the action they took, the BBC opened themselves up to be criticised for anything and everything that's even remotely risqué, and events of recent months have proved my point.

Oh. I apologise for misrepresenting you, but I thought you felt differently.

They were damned if they did and damned if they didn't.

With hindsight (and a modicum of common bleeding sense) the segment wouldn't have gone to air, and they wouldn't have to be second guessing themselves now.

But I don't accept that this means that they are now preventing anything risqué going to air - if anything it will entrench producers to be a bit more firm in what they see as fit for broadcast, and ready to stand up and argue at weak and flimsy complaints in the future.

However - if it helps the processes of due diligence with pre-records then I don't think that's a bad thing. That's what those senior producers are well paid to do, after all.

The whole Moyles thing wasn't meant in that way at all though. One of mates is Jewish & heard the comment & couldn't believe the fuss that was made over it.

However they've had words & I'm sure he's accept that perhaps it wasn't in the best taste.