It turns out the Sachsgate swings backwards, too

So, Jonathan Ross is going to do shows on Radio 2 again. I wonder how long it'll take the Mail to ring up Andrew Sachs asking him to be outr... oh, hang on, they've already done it, of course. What's that? He wasn't in? Never mind, his wife will do. Providing she's upset. Is she upset? Is she upset enough?

Melody Sachs said it was a ‘slap in the face’ to give the disgraced presenter a job on the same station on which he insulted her husband six years ago.

Oh, yes. There's some froth there.

The Mail isn't just outraged that Ross is intending to slap Andrew Sachs repeatedly in the face, live on air, as he sits in for Steve Wright for a few sessions. But this man - this monster - is going to be paid for doing so:

He will be paid an estimated £4,000 to host four three-hour programmes between August 26 and 29.

Obviously, though, that will double with every national treasure he can make cry.

The Mail offers no explanation for how they have arrived at this estimate of £4,000; perhaps they got a builder in to tell them how much he'd charge for a similar job.

But, sorry, Mrs Sachs: you were telling us how it's awful.

Mrs Sachs added: ‘I’m so surprised that the BBC has welcomed him back. I’m amazed that they could do such a thing. It’s like a slap in the face for us, especially after Andrew spent so much of his working life with the BBC writing, acting and directing. It’s very sad and thoughtless and disrespectful.’

She continued "it's like they don't care about the time he spent pretending to be Spanish to make people laugh at how stupid foreigners are for not being able to speak English. Did that two years of borderline xenophobia count for nothing?"

You know, Mrs Sachs' outrage is fine, but she's not an elected representative. It's not like the Mail is going to be able to find an MP willing to dredge up... oh, hang on, they have?

Last night Tory MP Philip Davies also criticised the decision to allow Ross back on the airwaves. He said: ‘My view is that what he did was completely and utterly unacceptable. He doesn’t appear to have accepted that, and until he does I don’t think the BBC should employ him.’

You might be having trouble placing Davies. He's the charmer who suggested that disabled people should earn less than other people, and that society was "standing in the way" of "less productive" people with learning disabilities by insisting they earn the minimum wage.

Winningly, when people pointed out that he sounded like an amoral asshat for even thinking this was a positive thought to share, Davies dismissed it as "leftwing hysteria". Which makes it all the more surprising that he should want to fan the flames of this empty hysteria.

Alright, I'm not surprised.

Anyway, back to the Sachs and their grim determination to not move on, not in the slightest:

Although Ross, 53, has said he feels ‘immense regret’, the Sachs family have refused to forgive him and claimed he used the publicity to advance his career.

Given at the time, Ross had the key BBC chatshow, his own radio programme and was regularly invited to MC high-profile events like the BAFTAs and the British Comedy Awards, and now I think he might be doing a chatshow on ITV and does holiday cover for Steve Wright, I'm not entirely sure how they think that works.

Given that it allowed Sachs to sell his memoirs to the Mail for serialisation - and guess which bit they extracted - you might suspect that the Sachs family are doing quite well out of the mini-outrage industry that the Mail has built around the incident.

The pranks were cruel, and unfunny, and childish; yes. But perhaps it wouldn't be so raw, so ever present in your thoughts if you didn't keep talking to newspapers about it every time Jonathan Ross steps outdoors.

Charles Moore remembers the olden days

Miley's having trouble moving on from something that happened over a week ago, but that's nothing compared to Charles Moore.

Moore still hasn't moved on from that time Russell Brand phoned up Andrew Sachs. The Telegraph's Mandrake column is happy to listen:

Brand thus displayed a peculiar lack of self-awareness when he alluded to Nazi persecution at the GQ [Men of the Year] event, given what Sachs’s own forbears had endured.

Moore drily noted that what Brand and Ross had later subjected Sachs to in their “disgusting” call also amounted to persecution. “I am not convinced that Mr Brand was ever really sorry at all for what he did,” Moore tells me.

Yes, incidentally: that is a grown-up, well-educated man who is idly comparing an ill-judged piece of childishness with the acts of the Nazis. That's surely the proof that will earn Mike Godwin the Nobel.

Gordon in the morning: We've always loved Ross and Brand

Colin Robertson supplies an piece for Bizarre this morning looking forward to Ross and Brand appearing together on the British Comedy Awards, but isn't entirely sure if he's meant to be excited at the prospect or disgusted at the very idea:

THE British Comedy Awards are going for maximum mayhem after inviting Russell Brand to join Jonathan Ross on stage - going out LIVE on TV.

Mayhem - that's good, right? A bit of bouncy fun and confusion and it's just like the Lords Of Misrule, yes? Who doesn't like a bit of mayhem?

Organisers are putting the stars together in a bid to stir up controversy for the show's first airing on Channel 4 after switching from ITV.

Controversey - that's bad, isn't it? Nobody wants controversy. That's enquiries, and apologies, and fines from regulators.

By the way, Colin, nice work on the not playing into the trap of the organisers trying to stir up controversy. Because if this was just an attempt to generate some publicity for an awards show, your cunning article has made sure that won't be happening. Well done.

There's an insider, quoted at length, in what is no way a desperate bid to try and talk up the possibility that something might happen:

We'll be standing by with the bleeper in case it gets too debauched

The Ross-Brand problem on Radio 2 wasn't swearing, though, was it? It was making repeated phone calls to an older man gloating at having had sex with his granddaughter. Even if someone in Broadcasting House had bleeped out the "fuck" when they made the call, I think we'd have still been in the same place.

The continuing confusion at The Sun over the Andrew Sachs affair is shown in this line:

Ross became a hate figure after telling actor Andrew Sachs during Brand's Radio 2 show in October 2008 that Russell had "f****d his granddaughter" Georgina Baillie, 25.

Actually, Ross didn't really become a hate figure - but why would Ross be singled out rather than Brand? Could it be because the paper relies on Brand to fill Gordon's columns, and Brand tends to hang out with Gordon's beloved Noel Gallagher, so it would be more inconsistent to pretend that Brand was hated while fawning over him?

Gordon in the morning: Brand new radio

Here's a surprise - apparently The Sun didn't mind Russell Brand calling up Andrew Sachs at all. Why, Gordon's hopping mad at what happened:

IT'S almost two years since RUSSELL BRAND was last broadcasting his ramblings on Radio 2.

Thanks to the Sachsgate nonsense that glorious reign on the airwaves was cut far too short, leaving a huge hole in the weekend schedules which still hasn't been filled.

Yes, how did that happen, Gordon? It's almost as if popular newspapers like your own spent days shrieking for heads to roll and people to go. Who knew it was all a load of silly nonsense all along, eh? If only Gordon had spoken up at the time.

Gordon is excited now because Brand has been offered a slot on Sirius:

An offer, worth millions of dollars, is on the table for Ol' Russ and his gang of chums to take their talents over the Pond to America.

Sirius Radio, a huge satellite broadcaster, has been chasing him for months with chequebook at the ready.

I think you'd be lucky to find "millions of dollars" - it's not losing money any more, but it's hardly cash-rich.

Could we have some words from a "pal"? Indeed we could:

"The Sirius deal is in its infancy but Russell is well up for it. He has been given the hard sell about how they could make him the new HOWARD STERN."

That's not such a generous offer, given how Sirius effectively broke the original Howard Stern.

The RAJARS: Not so much audience figures as a referendum

Most people see the Rajar figures as a guide - however wonky - to audience listening patterns for UK radio.

Not the Daily Mail, though. Like that bloke in Contact who can discern patterns in white noise coming from space, the Mail is able to look at the Rajar states and spy crowds of outraged middle Englanders who are waving angry pitchforks:

Radio 2 breakfast show host Terry Wogan also saw his listening figures soar, and extended his lead over foul-mouthed breakfast rival Chris Moyles.

The implication is that people are turning to twinkling Tel, having had their ears scorched by Moyles. The difficult detail that Moyles' audience is also rising seems to have somehow fallen off the final copy.

The real meat of the Mail's piece, though, is that the audience drop somehow proves that They Were Right About Those Andrew Sachs calls:

Listeners are deserting Jonathan Ross's Radio 2 show in droves following the Andrew Sachs phone scandal.

The controversial presenter has seen ratings for his Saturday morning show slump in the past three months.

The presenter's average weekly audience between March and June has been 2.85million.

This is a slump, is it?

That is 180,000 below the average of 3.03million for the first three months of this year

Slightly fewer people listening to the radio on Saturday mornings in the spring than in the winter. Whoever would have thought?

And since the higher audience you're comparing with there was, erm, after Ross had returned from the post-Sachs ban, that's it's a pretty weak contention to link that fall with the phone calls. Have you got anything else?

...and 540,000 down on the 3.39million from the first quarter of 2008.

Half a million lost listeners - well, that does sound a little more slumpy. But can you really put that down to desertion following the Sachs thing?

There could be other reasons - a general shift in audience to other things, loss of listeners during the period when Ross wasn't on - but more importantly, if the Mail is really trying to prove the impact of upsetting Andrew Sachs, why is comparing the audience in January-March 2008 with today? Wouldn't a comparison of the audience before the Brand-Ross calls - immediately before, rather than half a year before - be a bit more instructive?

Charles Moore: He keeps us poor

You'll recall last week Charles Moore penned an open letter to the BBC insisting he wouldn't pay his licence fee because of the airspace they gave to Jonathan Ross.

It was, he insisted, unfair to expect good, honest, law-abiding people like himself to use their hard-earned, god-fearing pennies to underwrite the costs of bringing unacceptable material to the nationally-owned airwaves.

Could this be the same Charles Moore who has just blown £45,000 plus costs in a legal settlement following his idiotic and wrong claims on Question Time that the leadership of the British Council Of Muslims condoned the killing and murder of British soldiers.

I'm a little lost as to whether we should all refuse to pay our licence fees until Charles Moore repays the £45k, or if we should just refuse to pay until the BBC promises never to put Charles Moore on again.

I'm also a little lost about this: If Moore really believes what he wrote in the letter, that the BBC was operating outside its charter ever since the Russell Brand phone calls to Andrew Sachs last October, why did he appear on Question Time this March? If the BBC had forfeited its charter, it had no right to broadcast - and was making the programmes with licence fee money Moore claims it had no right to collect. So Charles Moore went on a programme made with what he believes to be illegally obtained funds, broadcasting as a pirate operation, to make libellous and hurtful comments which have had to be compensated for, with monies he believes the BBC should not legally have.

Perhaps you should just pay your licence fee, Mr Moore?


[UPDATE: How will the Telegraph cope with this story? It loves a chance to have a pop at the BBC, but since the libel came from one of their own, what to do? Simples! Report the libel award but refer coyly to "a panelist". Good work.]

Two different Sachs

Last week, The Guardian interviewed Andrew Sachs. This week, Sachs speaks to the Mail.

Oddly, it's hard to reconcile the two accounts of the meetings.

Today's Mail:

For the first time, Andrew Sachs reveals his contempt for the stars behind that vile phone prank, his fury at their cynical 'apologies' – and how it's destroyed his relationship with his granddaughter [...]

Sadly, though, since the obscene telephone calls were broadcast, his family's dirty linen has been dragged out for a very public airing. Soon after, a slew of risqué images and videos of the 23-year-old, who goes by the stage name Voluptua, appeared in the downmarket newspapers alongside revelations of her role in the raunchy burlesque dance group Satanic Sluts. Andrew and Melody were knocked for six.

Last week's Guardian:

Sachs said the story had been widely misreported. He had not been close to his granddaughter Georgina Baillie, nor was he entirely shocked, as had been suggested, about her line of work as a dominatrix and member of the burlesque dance troupe Satanic Sluts.

Andrew Sachs: The victimless crime

If one thing was at the heart of the squawking fuss about Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand, it was that the close, loving relationship between Georgina Bailie and Andrew Sachs had been strained by the pranks, and that Sachs was upset. That, presumably, is why thousands of people who hadn't heard the programme felt they should complain. Because Andrew Sachs was in pain, and the people of England would speak up for the man who used to say Que.

Right?

Actually, no, it turns out, according to, erm, Andrew Sachs in an interview in today's Guardian:

Sachs said the story had been widely misreported. He had not been close to his granddaughter Georgina Baillie, nor was he entirely shocked, as had been suggested, about her line of work as a dominatrix and member of the burlesque dance troupe Satanic Sluts. "I knew what Georgina was doing, sort of. But there was a lot of misquoting going on. I didn't say much. People interpreted that as he's so dignified. I'm not dignified, I just didn't know what to say. What was there to say?"

But all those job losses, and those massive fines - they'd be atoning for Sachs' ruined, traduced life - isn't that right?

Sachs told the Guardian that the affair had caused pain and embarrassment for his wife Melody and daughter Kate, but admitted that the controversy had been good for his career. "I came out of it very well … my profile's up. Great! They did me good. Thank you very much."

Hang about... is Andrew Sachs saying that he's made money and done deals off the back of the Brand phone calls? Doesn't that mean he's reveling in the humiliating phone calls? Shouldn't he be sacked for padding his position off the back of this sick stunt? Or something? Shall we ask the Mail for a moral lead to follow?

Gordon in the morning: Must we fling this filth at our... oh, apparently, yes

If there's one thing that's been clear from the Sun's approach to the whole Andrew Sachs' answerphone story, it's that it was disgusting and wrong, and those involved should be butchered to a violent death to make amends.

Even this month, The Sun remains unequivocal, booming out from The Sun Says editorial page:

THE record £150,000 fine slapped on the BBC for broadcasting foul-mouthed insults hurts only licence-fee payers.

They will pick up the bill for a sick tirade by Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand against 72-year-old comedy legend Andrew Sachs.

The smug multi-millionaire “stars” should be made to pay the penalty.

Until they do, viewers will rightly ask: Woss going on?

Brand and Ross are smug, and sick. It was tirade. The answerphone messages were a "foul-mouthed tirade".

Can you imagine anything, anything at all, worse than one of the smug pair being all smug about that unacceptable tirade? If we learn one thing from the Sun, it's that the phone calls weren't funny, and there's nothing more sickening than watching Ross and Brand making light of the calls.

Although... hang on, what's this in Bizarre this morning?

Now Brand's on Obama's voicemail
RUSSELL BRAND is back to his best on the radio – leaving cheeky messages for BARACK OBAMA and even joking with JONATHAN ROSS.

Jonathan Ross mocked Russell on air for being an unlikely West Ham fan because on the surface “he appears to be homosexual”.

This prompted another off the cuff song from Russell, reminiscent of the moment he rhymed “consensual” and “menstrual” in his Sachsgate song.

Sorry? It's almost as if... well, we're now treating the calls to Andrew Sachs as a big lark and... well, almost being smug about them. Why the change in attitude?
Ah, yes. Gordon was invited to the studio, gets to take an awkward-looking photo with Noel Gallagher and all of a sudden it turns out to have been a bit of a jape.

Best off all from Gordon's piece is this bit:

Russell told me: “I would love to spend more time talking to Noel on radio and what better thing to discuss than sport and football?

“I spoke to Jonathan Ross, I left an voicemail message and so far no one from the Daily Mail seems troubled.”

Ah ha ha, yes, the silly old Daily Mail. The silly, silly newspaper that got all over-excited about the Andrew Sachs phone calls and called for Brand and Ross' head. That would have been the newspaper that did that. It's not like The Sun joined in at all.

Don Foster jumps on the Andrew Sachs bandwagon

You might have thought the Liberal Democrats would have been busy trying to shift a general dissatisfaction with Labour and Tory politicians into some sort of political advantage for a relatively untainted third party.

But, no, apparently they just want to bang on and on about Jonathan Ross.

Looking for someone to feign outrage that Ross made a joke after the Ofcom ruling on the Russell Brand show was broadcast on Radio 2, the Liberal Democrat Culture spokesperson Don Foster offered this:

Giggling, the presenter said: "You didn't get that address down, did you? I want to get the full thing, ... I can't read enough about it." Lib Dem culture spokesman Don Foster said: "If Ross can't show he understands... his responsibility, it may be time to clip his wings."

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Foster has yet to add this gallery-playing half-thought to his In The News column on his website. Almost as if it made him feel a little dirty.

British public fined for Russell Brand's errors

So, Ofcom has decided that the BBC must pay for the Russell Brand phonecalls - or, rather, the licence fee payer has to stump up £150,000.

Given Jonathan Ross was suspended for three months without pay as a result of the phone calls, technically the BBC are still going to come out of the deal a few thousand ahead, but the sense of fining the BBC still makes little sense: that's the money we give them to make programmes with. So, in effect, we're having our money taken away and given to the government for something we didn't do. If there must be fines levied against the BBC, should they not come from management's wages - or the independent production company who made the programmes - and not from licence fee money? How does it fit with Ofcom's other work to ensure that there's enough money for public service broadcasting if it takes money away from the only place that is making it?

Ofcom doesn't seem interested, either, that most of the complaints came from people who hadn't heard the programme, and only were outraged at the descriptions of the event they read in the papers. It acknowledges, but doesn't comment:

After the programme of 18 October 2008, the BBC had received 2 complaints from listeners. However, on the Monday (27 October) after the programme of 25 October 2008 and following articles in the national press, the BBC received a further 546 complaints. The total number of complaints finally received by the BBC about Russell Brand was 42,851.

It doesn't alter the question if the programme should have been broadcast, but shouldn't Ofcom at least be starting a debate about this? People were upset not by the radio programme, but by the Mail's coverage of the radio programme. Should Ofcom really be responding to complaints from people who have only been alerted by a newspaper piece? 42,849 complainants had learned about Baillie's private life from the Mail On Sunday, not from Radio 2. Who was the actual broadcaster here?

It's especially odd that Ofcom seems most upset about the invasion of Georgina Baillie and Andrew Sachs' privacy - although she didn't actually complain herself, and he explicitly didn't want to:

In response to Andrew Sachs’ agent, Ofcom acknowledged receipt of the copy of the complaint and noted that Ofcom had “not received any Fairness or Privacy complaint from Andrew Sachs or his granddaughter.” Andrew Sachs’ agent then informed Ofcom that Mr Sachs “has no further complaint he wants to make.”

And in fact, given that within a few days Baillie was signing off on a nationwide poster campaign for a Channel Five programme which said "Now we'll give Georgina the chance to screw them both", it doesn't seem that Baillie was that bothered at all. It doesn't excuse what Brand and Ross did, but it's a bit weird protecting the privacy of someone who doesn't appear to be that upset at the supposed invasion and of another who made it clear they wouldn't be making a formal complaint about privacy.

If I'm understanding this correctly, then, the invasion of the pair's privacy was investigated not because the victims complained, but because a bunch of newspaper readers complained. An ugly public mob demanding that people who had elected to try and move on have their privacy defended, whether they wanted it or not. Let's go and drag Sachs into the street, bring him out his house, and make sure we protect his privacy by kicking off another round of stories about how his Granddaughter had poor taste in men.

One further piece on the affair: Ofcom have also issued a judgement against a Chris Moyles show for an interview he did with Brand. No fine for this, but it is another public drubbing for Moyles. Perhaps Parfitt might need to call him in again.

British Press Awards: Mail wins prizes

For some reason, the British Press Awards - which used to be used to reward the best of UK journalism - has given its scoop of the year award to the Mail On Sunday. It's scoop?

The Jonathan Ross-Russell Brand story.

Now, I might be missing something here, but how exactly is writing a story about something that had been on the radio eight days before count as a scoop? It had been on the radio. Surely, if someone deserves a prize for letting people know that Brand and Ross had left messages on Andrew Sachs' answerphone, it should go to Radio 2 for broadcasting it just after it happened?

Still, it's exciting to know that copying stuff down off Listen Again now passes for the best of investigative journalism. I'm going to transcribe last Sunday's Archers omnibus. I fully expect to be picking up a Pulitzer within the year.

Gordon in the morning: Valuing the Brand

If there's one thing we can be sure about with The Sun, it's that it isn't impressed with Russell Brand. Last October, The Sun Says outrageditorial fumed:

It says a lot, in these days of routine F-words and sex jibes, that serial offenders Brand and Ross have outraged even their own fans.

Even their own fans - who, clearly, are people who have very, very low moral standards - even they have had enough. The paper might even have suggested Brand delivered disgusting stupidity on air.

It's good that a newspaper can take a firm, moral position and... sorry, Gordon? What did you say?

RUSSELL BRAND is making his radio comeback hosting a football show with pal NOEL GALLAGHER.

It will be Russell’s return to the airwaves since quitting his BBC Radio 2 show in October after making prank calls to Fawlty Towers star ANDREW SACHS.

But... isn't Brand known for his disgusting stupidity? Wasn't Andrew Sachs - what was the phrase? - "held in affection by millions worldwide for his priceless role as Manuel"?

Luckily, even Gordon knows a 180 when he makes one on his paper's behalf:

Swordsman Russell apologised and fell on his, erm, sword after the Sachsgate scandal where he and JONATHAN ROSS left messages on Andrew’s answerphone about his fling with the actor’s granddaughter GEORGINA BAILLIE.

But I reckon he has served his time and personally I am pleased to hear his unique style back on the wireless.

Oh. So, somehow, that whole firestorm last October - all we needed was to wait a couple of months and everything would be forgotten and forgiven, huh? Although somehow not for Jonathan Ross, who didn't seem to have served his time when he returned.

And, yes, let's just pretend that Noel Gallagher's name wasn't mentioned there, shall we?

Jonathan Ross: The Daily Mail is unsatisfied

Since the rest of the world has drawn a line under the Andrew Sachs phonecalls business, it falls to the Daily Mail to keep the flame of fake outrage burning:

Jonathan Ross is refusing to bow to pressure for a public apology for his part in the obscene phone calls scandal.

That's quite stubborn of him. You'd have thought a public apology would have been the very least he could do. He should follow the example of Jonathan Ross, who apologised publicly back in October:

"I am deeply sorry and greatly regret the upset and distress that my juvenile and thoughtless remarks on the Russell Brand show have caused.

"I have not issued a statement previously because it was my intention and desire to offer an apology to all those offended on my Friday night programme.

"However, it was a stupid error of judgment on my part, and I offer a full apology."

So what the Mail really means is that Ross is refusing to apologise every time he appears in public. Which isn't quite the same thing at all.

Another one disappears into the Brand vortex

In what even the MediaGuardian is calling Sachsgate - seriously? that's the best you could do? - another head has rolled; the website is flashing that Dave Barber, head of Radio 2's compliance team, has resigned. Boy, has he been considering his position for a long, long time. More worryingly from a people who like Radio 2 perspective is that Barber's other job was being in charge of specialist music programmes on the network.