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.

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: Becks defender

Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross are getting back together to generate some cheap publicity for Absolute Radio:

RUSSELL BRAND and JONATHAN ROSS will be together on the radio next month for the first time since Sachsgate.

Except, it turns out, they won't be on radio at all:

The pair will record a podcast live from Hackney, east London, for Absolute Radio.

What's the "live" doing there? Is it recorded, or is it live?

Elsewhere, Gordon's former number two and a journalist come together to rubbish the claims of the Beckham 'hooker':

Tosh N Becks By RICHARD WHITE and PETE SAMSON, US Editor

There is an obvious weakness in the InTouch story: if the woman who claims to have had an on-the-meter threesome with Beckham really is a high-earning sex worker with royalty, celebrities and sportspeople amongst her regulars, why would she ruin her business for a single cheque from a US magazine?

But News International isn't going to point out that the sort of top-level prostitute who often appears in their stories is the least likely person to be spilling beans. Indeed, it suggests that maybe this is a cash cow for her:

Last night Irma was trying to cash in on her allegations. She hired an agent and set up the website irmanici.com to charge 60p for each picture downloaded by users.

There's nothing more shabby than salacious content behind a paywall, eh, Mr Murdoch?

Of course, what's really here is a chance to throw rocks at another publisher:

Irma's story was splashed across America's In Touch Weekly lifestyle magazine, published by German media group Bauer, which operates in 15 countries including Britain.

Two journalists and - presumably - a sub looked at that sentence and decided it needed no further work.

To a casual observer, there might be a question 'if the story is so horrific and wrong, why bother repeating it?' But, hey, there's a news angle as... erm... it might all be some sort of conspiracy:

One theory about the allegations is that they may be an attempt to undermine England's bid to stage the 2018 World Cup. Becks is one of our leading ambassadors.

Even if that was likely - and, frankly, is isn't - given that the World Cup is one of the biggest drivers of new business to prostitutes, that shouldn't be a problem, should it?

The illustrated Hello: Vince Hilaire

Vince Hilaire was a black footballer in the First Division at a time when that wasn't always a comfortable thing to be:

"After about 20 minutes, the manager, then Terry Venables, told me to go and have a warm-up. I came out of the dug-out, and I started jogging around the touchline. I couldn't believe the abuse that was coming at me... animal noises and all the names you think of calling a black person. Any name under the sun. And it frightened me a bit, so I couldn't wait to get back in the dug-out. And I thought, 'Well, if this is the sort of reception I'm going to get, then I don't really want to know'"

He didn't back down, though, and went on to represent ChelseaCrystal Palace more than 200 times, played for England's Under 21 team, managed a spell in the American soccer scene and enjoyed a gentle career decline through Luton, Portsmouth, Leeds, Stoke and Exeter.

But he owes his big break to Terry Venables. Venables, who fancied himself as something of a singer back in the day:



That clip did feature some Robbie Williams. To offset it, here's Amanda Palmer with her... tribute... to Hilaire's Leeds United. Probably:



[Part of the Illustrated Hello]

[For more - much, much more - on football and music crossing over, Football and Music is your number one source. Which would make it the goalkeeper.]

[Update: Crystal Palace. Not Chelsea. I regret the error.]

Gennaro Castaldo Watch: Ross loss upsets boss

The music industry - yes, the very music industry - is crying like a kiddie with its fingers trapped in a car door as the disappearance of the Jonathan Ross show sinks in. Head mourner, of course, is HMV's Panther Of Fact, Gennaro Castaldo:

Among those who are sorry to see the demise of Friday Night With Jonathan Ross are many in the music industry. Gennaro Castaldo, of HMV, said: “The loss of this show will come as a blow. It was one of the few shows that still showcases music and new releases to huge family audiences.

“Jonathan was particularly great at championing the kind of new artists and leftfield talent that don’t get much of a look in on TV.”

Because it's not like there's going to be a similar show, in a similar timeslot, having the same sort of 'book Bono, but if Bono's busy book someone who has had a couple of NME covers' approach to filling those all-important three minutes at about ten past eleven on a Friday when everyone is already switching off.

Gordon in the morning: Lythgoe away now

There's a reason why Nigel Lythgoe's role tends to be backstage rather than upfront on the various variations of the same programme that he churns out. He looks like Frank Skinner's Lutheran brother and has the screen presence of that bloke who does the cowboy builders show on daytime TV.

Say what you like about Simon Cowell - and do feel free to - but at least he looks like he belongs on the programme he helms. Lythgoe always comes across like there's been a government-inspired job exchange programme, and somewhere off the M40 there's a regional sales conference being hosted by Boyd Hilton.

Which brings us to where we are today: A bunch of piss-weak stories about Lythgoe trying to turn him from a slightly creepy, misplaced presence on BBC One's Have A Bit Of A Dance programme into some sort of showbiz powerhouse. Quite shamefully, BBC News is at it, turning 'man says he might offer another man a job, but he doesn't really think the other man will be interested anyway' into this:

Nigel Lythgoe to contact Jonathan Ross about US TV work

Gordon has a more basic attempt to try and shake the impression that he's a man in search of a clipboard and torchpen:

MODEL JERRY HALL is dating TV talent show villain "Nasty" NIGEL LYTHGOE, The Sun can reveal.

The Texan beauty's former lovers include rock icons BRYAN FERRY and MICK JAGGER.

Perhaps, but that doesn't then make Lythgoe a bit like Mick Jagger. I'm seeing this as bit more like the promotional work she used to do for Bovril.

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.]

Moyles accuses BBC of timid approach

The signs you have seen, child, are those of Chris Moyles entering his DLT-pomp stage:

Radio 1 DJ Chris Moyles has accused the BBC of making dull programmes because it does not want to upset listeners.

He says that radio shows are "so formulaic [that] anyone different, like me or Jonathan (Ross), stands out".

It will not be long now, child, before Moyles leaves the building, complaining to all who still seek him out on HearteningFM or Absolutelynotvirgins that it wasn't he who got tiresome, it was the BBC who got tired:

But, he told the Radio Times: "The reality is you can't keep everyone happy all the time."

At this point, the original transcripts show, he digressed for a few minutes about how he and all his mates were in the pub the night before, drinking beers, discussing pretty much the same issue; said something inaudible about gays; and then returned to his theme:

"The BBC is in a very weird state where they just don't want to upset anybody," said Moyles.

"Everything now needs to be signed, sealed and approved 18 times."

He might have a point there, but how clumsy to suggest the problem is that people would be upset if everything is not sent through thirteen layers of compliance.

"We're not trying to change the world, but because radio is so dull, so boring and so formulaic, and anyone different - me or Jonathan - stands out.

"So the BBC is throwing down rules and regulations on you and then the newspapers are saying certain things and you're just trying to juggle everything while keeping everyone happy at the same time. "

The other way you could look at it is, Chris, that most DJs are sensitive enough to know where the line is, and so anyone who is lumbering about not knowing when enough is enough, like Chris Moyles, stands out. And draws the weight of compliance down on everyone.

There are a lot of people who do interesting and boundary-sniffing things on BBC Radio, without upsetting people. It's they who should be complaining about the new era of over-compliance brought about by people like Moyles who couldn't control themselves.

Charles Moore is the last person in the world still banging on about Jonathan Ross

For some reason, Charles Moore has decided that he doesn't need a TV licence because Jonathan Ross is still on the BBC.

If this really just sounds like a petty man too tight to pay a few quid for his television licence, desperately trying to find some sort of justification for his meanness, Moore is quick to defend himself:

I am not seeking to profit from my refusal, so I have today sent a cheque for £142.50 (the current rate) to Help the Aged. I have chosen this charity because part of Jonathan Ross’s offence was his insult to the old.

Hmm. Without wanting to defend Ross and Brand, has it really occurred to Moore what would happen to the Aged, with or without his money, should the BBC be destroyed by petty actions like his? There aren't many broadcasters who carry programming aimed at older viewers; there's no other broadcaster who would create a season like Grey Expectations; take the time to make programmes that address getting older. If we destroy the BBC, when broadcasters are busily chasing the younger, more affluent audiences, what will the lonely, the old and the housebound watch and listen to, Moore?

Jonathan Ross did some stupid things - for which he has apologised, and for which a lot of people have lost their jobs. Is that really worth destroying one of the nation's cultural institutions over?

I note that Moore doesn't say he intends to stop watching BBC News, or reading the website, or checking travel information on the local radio network while he is withholding his cash. In which case: is it morally OK for all of us to steal copies of the Daily Telegraph until Moore apologises for confusing an error of judgement with a moral vacuum?

Nolans: They were big in Japan, you know

The coming back of bands you thought broken before belief continues: now here comes The Nolans. Again.

ContactMusic sees this as important:

British pop group THE NOLANS have reunited for the first time in more than 25 years - with plans for a comeback tour later this year (09).

The first time in 25 years? But they were on Brookside, weren't they?

It turns out that when ContactMusic says "25 years", it actually means, erm, four:

The singing sisters began their career in 1974 as a five-piece - Anne, Denise, Maureen, Linda and Bernie, with younger sibling Coleen joining in 1980.
Denise was first to quit the band, leaving in 1978, followed by Linda in 1983. Coleen and Bernie left in the 1990s, while Maureen and Anne, together with Anne's daughter Amy and unrelated singer Julia Duckworth, carried on the group until they disbanded in 2005.

ContactMusic tries to suggest that the fact they've barely had a chance to drop their stage outfits round the dry cleaners isn't that important:

But now four of the original group are back - Coleen, 44, Bernie, 48, Linda, 50, and Maureen, 55 - to play a string of U.K. dates to mark the 30th anniversary [of I'm In The Mood For Dancing].

But you just said that Coleen wasn't an original member.

But they were big in Japan.

And let's never forget that they did this:



Yes, that's the Nolans doing Panic on Tonight With Jonathan Ross.

Ross: It's on tape already

Presumably so Bob Shennan is able to sleep soundly at nights, Jonathan Ross' Radio 2 programme is going to be pre-recorded in the future.

Well, the programme will be recorded in the past, obviously, but this will be happening in the future. Or from now on:

However, from tomorrow's broadcast, his Radio 2 show will move to being pre-recorded "as live" each week on Fridays, giving the BBC the chance to edit out any gaffes or questionable content.

If the programme is edited, then it's not exactly "as live", is it?

The BBC News story is interesting:

[The Radio 2 spokesperson] did not confirm whether listeners will be told the show had been pre-recorded when it is aired.

Really? Because it's not like BBC Radio has even got into difficulties sticking out a programme without letting on it has been taped, is it?

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: Even a "look, it's a belly" punchline can't cheer him up

This morning, Gordon is worried about a mate. Or, rather, someone who he has had his photo taken with, but that's kind of a mate, isn't it? In fact, being in photos with people is better than being real mates as you don't have to worry about what to get them for Christmas or anything, while you can still show people pictures of you with them and everyone will assume you're tight with them.

Anyway, Gordon's worried about James Corden, on account of how the clouds are starting to gather:

IF Family Fortunes asked 100 people to name a popular, chipper, chubby comedian, JAMES CORDEN would be the top answer.

But the big lad from Gavin & Stacey has recently been far from the bubbly Smithy the nation has grown to love.

Big Jim hit rock bottom last week after taking to heart brutal criticism of his new TV comedy sketch show Horne & Corden.

If the nation has grown to love him, how does that square with him being criticised into feeling miserable? I know the United Kingdom can be a complicated place to track emotion - you never find out that you were a national treasure until you get bad news from the doctor - but that sounds awkwardly complicated even for us.

Gordon knows James is down because a mate told him. The sort of mate who runs to the papers to let them know that you're having a bad day. That sort of mate:

A mate said: “James is having a real crisis of confidence at the moment. He has been worried that the honeymoon period has come to an end.

“It’s the first time since everything kicked off for him that the non-stop good times have really turned bad.

“He has been depressed because he feels it has all been a bit personal."

Well, yes, the criticism has been a bit personal, what with the writing-and-starring-in-a-comedy-show-named-after-you nature of the work.

Gordon then goes on to churn through the setbacks that Horne's had recently - although neglects to mention "nation screaming 'don't you bloody dare' when the idea of launching a band was floated" - before offering some sparks of comfort:

Lesbian Vampire Killers, James’s recently released flick with Mat, has bagged £1million in its first week.

Although, of course, the reviews for it made the mauling Horne & Corden got look like a Chinese Burn. And it seems to be trailing behind Mall Cop right now. It's hard to imagine James Corden is going to cheer up thinking that people would rather watch a man called Blart than his movie.

As I revealed a couple of months ago, James has also landed a leading role in the Hollywood remake of Gulliver’s Travels.

Although the IMDB has yet to add him in to their cast list. And since he's not Gulliver, or Gulliver's wife, it's not entirely clear quite how leading he was.

James and Mat got through hosting this year’s Brits unscathed — where bigger names have come tumbling down.

Yes, James: hold on to the smattering of polite applause.

On top of that, Gavin & Stacey has been commissioned for a third series, with a Christmas special to boot.

Yes... stick with the sitcom. The public like the sitcom. You've got a sitcom.

And Gordon points out that James isn't entirely alone:

In her absence a man who is no stranger to controversy and the occasional bad review has been offering his new chum some support through the bad times — JONATHAN ROSS.

Rossy. Rossy will help you through.

Jonathan Ross cheering up a guy stuck in a sitcom, wishing he could be thought of as more than just a punchline, being accused of spreading himself too thinly, getting a critical mauling. Why does that sound so familiar?

Also today, Gordon has the scoop on where Michael Jackson will be staying during his three year residency in Camden:

THRILLER star MICHAEL JACKSON will stay next to HAUNTED CAVES during his 50-concert stint in London this summer.

Jacko, 50, has paid £1million to rent a 28-bedroom Kent mansion on the edge of an ancient 22-mile maze of spooky passageways.

Let's hope there's a spooky passageway linking Kent to Essex, as it's only a couple of weeks since Gordon claimed Jackson was renting Rod Stewart's mansion to stay in.

The Daily Mail has confused us

The Mail has some condescending fun with photos of Rod Stewart kissing a woman in the street:

Do ya think I'm sexy, Rod? Rocker Stewart kisses OAP fan in the street

Rod Stewart proved he still got what it takes to make a lady swoon - even if it is an OAP.

The rocker left one senior fan reeling yesterday after he planted a kiss on her lips as he left a Starbucks cafe in Bel Air.

The bespectacled woman was the envy of the street after the ever-charming 64-year-old weaved his magic.

Stewart was out with his 21-year-old daughter Ruby, who was left rather amused by her father's lady-killing antics.

So his daughter had a bit of a chortle at the thought of Rod kissing a (not actually that much older) lady, right? All good, clean, innocent fun.

Apart from the woman being thrust into the Mail simply because she happened to be kissed by Stewart, with no indication any attempt was made to ask if she minded being publicly made the butt of a Mail piece snickering at the idea of - heavens - someone kissing an older woman.

Now, maybe I'm getting confused, but when Jonathan Ross made a joke about having a dalliance with an older woman - an unnamed woman, until the tabloids invaded her privacy - wasn't that somehow taking advantage of her? Or is it only bad if you, erm, don't know who the person is?