I truly believe he can help you help yourself. Don’t wait until you’re drowning in problems, be pro-active, pick up your phone and deal with your problems, and if you can’t call the Negotiator, or someone else you believe is qualified to help. The worst thing you can do is nothing at all!

“Frightened to pick up your phone, to open your post, to answer your front door? Welcome to the Debtors Club. It’s not very exclusive and has a membership of millions and is still growing fast..

You’re not the only ones who are scared. Lenders are terrified of losing their money. In these difficult times, “scared” equals “aggressive”. Lenders believe that the best way of retaining control is to bully you into giving them priority.

The instant you fall behind with a monthly payment, you start receiving threatening letters and menacing phone-calls. The rottweilers start to phone you four times a day. This is hard to take for the toughest of you, but it’s worse if your loved ones are sometimes picking up that phone call and it’s possible that they are not equipped with the knowledge to deal with the matter. The creditor knows that this is an additional pressure point on you and will use it without a second thought.

Remember how you would usually deal with normal business, and treat this in the same manner, you are not a criminal and you shouldn’t be treated as if you were.

You may have a valid dispute;
There may have been an admin error on the part of your lender/supplier;
You may simply have a temporary cash-flow  problem.

The people who are harassing you are not interested. They are chained up in a dark basement in Warrington, they haven’t eaten for three days and they know that they won’t be fed until they have extracted your payment. Your dispute/cash-flow is not a part of their agenda. They are not managing a relationship, they are managing the collection of a debt.

They will employ some or all of the following techniques to bully you into submission.
•    3 or 4 calls a day……every day.
•    Different callers each time.
•    Discourtesy, stopping just short of downright rudeness.
•    A complete lack of interest in what you are saying.
•    Repetition of the same questions/statements, over and over again.

DON’T PUT UP WITH THIS.

During the recsssion of the early 90’s I  stood in your shoes and learnt how to deal with them  At that time, the rotweillers  were just  sharpening their teeth and learning the techniques that are now regarded as standard practise.

WHAT YOU MUST DO!

•    If you are getting into financial trouble with your payments the single best piece of advice anyone can give you is that you should see where you can reduce your costs and then if that is not immediately possible work out what you are realistically going to be able to afford and when you have a plan you should contact your creditors with the plan of action you intend to pursue.There are people out there who specialise in this who can help you devise such a plan, and I am just one of them.
•    But when you are called by a debt-collection agency, BEFORE you enter into any conversation, write the full name and contact details of the company. Make sure this includes the FULL name of the caller……especially the surname! People without surnames feel less accountable….less likely to be found again. So remember! No details, no conversation. No surname, no conversation
•    Never accept intimidation tactics. Stay in control. You do this by being POLITE but FIRM. If you’re not firm, you’re not in control. If you get annoyed, you’re not in control.
•    If you can’t do “polite but firm”, authorize someone who can to speak on your behalf .
•    In addition, state your case in a dated letter that contains the facts and make certain it is addressed to a named recipient.
•    Don’t tolerate repeat calls from other people, who want to have the same conversation. Tell them you are working, refer them to the colleague you spoke to earlier and terminate the call.
•    If you have a cash-flow problem, work out a sensible and realistic arrangement for repaying over a period and getting back on track.
•    DON’T let yourself get steam-rollered into giving a knee-jerk reaction to the first call. Take the time you need time to think it through.
•    Politely request another call in 24 hours and use that time to work out your plan. Explain it clearly and civilly and don’t allow yourself to be bullied into a different plan which doesn’t work for you.. If they pressurize you, just say “there’s no point in entering into an arrangement I know I can’t keep to. Otherwise we’ll only be having the same conversation in a few weeks time.” If they still fail to see reason, insist on speaking to a manager.
•    If you have a genuine dispute or complaint, again explain it carefully and concisely but only once. If that gets you nowhere, INSIST on speaking to a manager. Do not be deflected by the words “he’ll only tell you what I’m telling you.” Tell them you’ll take that chance, but do not entertain any more conversations with staff, even if they call themselves assistant managers or customer service managers (that last title is usually a complete contradiction in terms). Ask for the full name of the manager and refuse to take calls from anyone else. When you speak to the manager, explain your complaint clearly and politely….always politely….and ask them to see that it is properly investigated; that is your right.
•    Better than all of the above, if you have any of the problems described, don’t wait for your creditors to come after you. Remember you are on much stronger ground if you call them first

However much you owe, the principle is the same, If the problem seems to big or the issues too complex you should think about bringing an experienced expert  into your team (it’s what people like me do). Whatever you decide, stay calm, stick to your plans and you can stay in control.”

This awful fate for Baby P was compounded by the fact that he was unfortunate enough to be born in the district of Haringey, a part of London. Haringey Council allowed this murder to take place because they are inept, stupid, callous and indifferent to the humanity they are supposed to safeguard.

In the UK we have long been proud of our social services, which, it was thought, had long “looked after” those unable to care for themselves.

Sadly, dreadfully, we now know that this is no longer the case. It transpires that there were obvious grave suspicions about the well being of Baby P because the social services had made or participated in 60 (sixty) visits or interactions with this baby and its family.

Included amongst these were doctor examinations of the child and these missed the many terrible injuries he suffered. Amongst these were broken bones, including a broken back. What kind of doctor examines an at risk baby and misses a broken back? I shall answer that question, it’s a doctor who doesn’t give a damn.

How did all the health and social workers simply file their forms, check the boxes and visit that dreadful family but not do anything about it? All of them, without any explanation or excuse being acceptable, plainly did not give a damn.

It was revealed today that six months ago a letter was sent to then Minister of Health, Patricia Hewitt, by a social worker about his concerns regarding the lack of care being provided by Haringey Council. Nothing was done. Why, because she was a Minister who didn’t really give a damn.

It is alleged that the social worker that warned of this danger to Baby P was victimized for acting in a way that her seniors working for Haringey Council deemed inappropriate. How could this be possible? It’s because they cared more about their jobs than they did about the welfare of this baby.

The leader of this section of Haringey Council did not even apologize until he was forced to by pressure coming down on his shoulders from the entire media and politically from the Prime Minister, and every other leading public figure. This is some of that apology;

“I want as Leader of the Council to make this formal apology on behalf of Haringey Council at this first meeting of the Cabinet. I will do so again to the meeting of the full Council next week. These are the right places for Haringey to formally acknowledge our deep sorrow for these tragic events.

Let me begin by making clear that we are very sorry for the events which led up to the death of Baby P; sorry for the suffering he endured; sorry for the failure of all the child protection agencies involved to protect him, to save his life.

Haringey Council’s apology is heartfelt and unreserved.

It is made to all those who knew and cared for the well being of Baby P; it is made to all those residents of Haringey who feel let down by the actions of the child protection agencies in our area and concerned for the future of every other child at risk; and it is made to the wider public who will have listened with horror at the dreadful damage done during the tragically short life of Baby P.

We are truly sorry.”

Again, like the recent financial catastrophe, we have more evidence here of systematic failure. It is not enough to have forms to fill and procedures to follow. If common sense and your own eyes tell you that a disaster is unfolding you must stop covering your own ass and start looking after everyone’s ass. We have, as a society, abandoned responsibility for our own actions and, instead, hidden behind procedures.

There should be better protection for those in our society who cannot look after them, and punishment for those charged with this care that fail in its delivery.

Of course we must never lose sight of the fact that it was not the Council or any of its officer or social workers or associated doctors that murdered this child, but they and their inhuman and inefficient system allowed it to happen.

It is the parents of Baby P who are responsible and who will share the main punishment. I hope they are locked up forever and that the other residents of the prison find out who they are and deal with them appropriately.

It is past time for the individual to stand up and be counted. If you see something is wrong don’t keep quiet, make your concern known, tell people, put it in writing and make sure you follow it up. It could really make a difference. Our worst enemies are complacency, indifference and fear. Who knows, if you speak out, you might just save a life.

At a time when America is limping towards the newly elected President Elect Obama you would think it was a potentially great time for a gifted director to make the definitive film about his predecessor, but this is neither that film nor that director.

This film is the totally biased political hate message from Oliver Stone to all those he considers neo Conservative.

“W” takes viewers through Bush’s sometimes bizarre but always busy life — his many apparent trials and tribulations as he struggled to come out from the giant shadow cast by his ultra successful and high achieving family, particularly his father, his namesake, the first President George Bush who had been gifted at everything he touched, being a heroic Second World War pilot, successful in business, and in politics and as head of the CIA. It was a great deal to live up to and George W found it a challenge he couldn’t live up to for the first part of his life.

The film shows this is in colorful detail and Josh Brolin is especially good at portraying this part of George W’s life. The story flashes back and forth in time as we also see George W as President dealing with the Iraq war as it unfolds. It is this aspect of the story that appears politically loaded which comes across in strange ways. Some of the scenes between the major players in the inner circles of the US government portray everyone as neo conservative fanatics, weak willed or weak minded. This is when the film sinks into caricature rather than any kind of attempt at accuracy.

The film is at its best, and that really isn’t great, when it demonstrates how George W found both his wife and his faith, and of course the critical days leading up to Bush’s decision to invade Iraq.

Leading the all-star cast is Josh Brolin (”No Country For Old Men”, “American Gangster”) as the eponymous character who is joined by James Cromwell (”The Queen”) as George H.W. Bush. He always gives a good performance, and this is no exception, but he is let down by the screenplay by Stanley Weisser that calls for us to accept, at its centre, an implausible relationship between the two Bush men. In fact with the screenplay being so implausible, unfunny and wooden we are compelled to examine the cause for this fault. It is the filmmakers over heated desire to assassinate the character of George W never mind any facts that might hinder this aim.

It’s hard not to parody Stone’s version of super pumped up right-wingers but experience tells us not to attempt to parody a parody. It’s a pity that Stone had never learned this lesson. With these faults at the core of the film it can never work on a human level, who is there to care about in this film, in fact who is real enough to warrant our attention for good or ill?

Elizabeth Banks (”The 40 year Old Virgin”, “Meet Dave”) is fine as Laura Bush, but, and I am sure this is no accident; she is much portrayed as a Stepford Wife. Ellen Burstyn (”Requiem for a Dream”) is excellently cast as Barbara Bush. Toby Jones (”Infamous”, “Frost/Nixon”) is a very convincing Karl Rove, but I suspect this is more to do with the fact that he’s a terrific actor than anything about the accuracy of the portrayal.

Thandie Newton (”Crash”, “RocknRolla”) is totally unconvincing as Condoleezza Rice because she portrays her as some kind of Bush pet idiot, and that simply is not plausible. In fact, any awards that Thandie was given for Crash should now be taken back for the awful acting and accent she gives us here.

Ioan Gruffud (”Fantastic Four”) only has one sequence as Tony Blair and demonstrates none of the charm or charisma that clearly was one of the reasons he was so highly regarded by the non-British leaders he encountered.

The supporting cast includes some wonderful actors such as Richard Dreyfuss who are all fine but almost all of them seem to be taking part in an attempt to demonstrate just how stupid the team around Bush is rather than either entertain us or simply tell us an engaging story.

All of the technical work is of the usually excellent standard we take for granted and I am glad to note that the ageing of the cast as the story unfolds is handled better than it sometimes is. The problems here come from the sometimes cartoon characters in the script by and the direction of Oliver Stone. They are both so determined to lampoon the President they forgot he is a real man who was elected and re-elected. If your film says he is such an idiot what does that say for the many millions of Americans who voted for him?

As always when I write something political about a left leaning artist such as Oliver Stone, as I did yesterday, that questions the politically correct accepted truths of the political left, in either the UK or the USA, this brought a deluge of e-mail. Mostly from the right-wingers who agreed with what they perceived to be my fellow traveling credentials. There was also the odd criticism of me, from the left, castigating me for my being right wing. I am, I hope, much more complex than this, but that is another story.

I respectfully point out that I was criticizing the immorality of the lies used by propagandists for either side of the political equation, I was not expressing favoritism in either direction, just my bias against liars pretending to be seekers of truth in an almost documentary style, when they are, in fact, biased story tellers with a political agenda they are determined to pursue.

Many of our finest have died, almost too many to count, and even more were horribly maimed for the rest of their lives, and this continues today. They suffer for us.

On the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month the guns fell silent to signal the end of the carnage of the First World War, in the year 1918, 90 years ago, but still remembered.

Millions died, and since that terrible war have come other bloody conflicts, including the Second World War, in which more uncountable millions perished.

I am proud, very proud, of the part my countrymen and women played in the wars and conflicts over the last century. My country might not always have been right, but we remember the outstanding and unbending bravery of the people who served their country and the protection of liberty so well.

From the battlefields of the Somme to Dieppe to the Falklands, Malaysia and currently Iraq and Afghanistan and thousands of nameless other places our servicemen and women sacrificed their lives so that we could enjoy our future, comfortable in our freedom.

If we are ever to try and avoid the disasters of the future we must learn from the dreadful mistakes of the past. But while we recognize the negative we must never lose sight of the magnificence of the lions that were the best of us. We thank them now and forever.

They want anecdotes, bullet points, cover design ideas, title suggestions and strap lines. Don’t they understand I journeyed up the Mount Olympus of the publishing world to step away from the hurly burly of the rat race, and here I am scuttling around on my little treadmill.

I have no idea what I shall do, but having had a lifetime of meeting and beating schedules, both creative and financial, I shall find a way to say something pithy, and just in time.

It does truncate this column a bit, because it was going to be on the subject of my wall hangings, and now it might sound a bit mad, my reasons for them, if I don’t give you the full background.

Here in the West Wing of Klinger Towers, where I look out over the vast rolling acres of my back lawns I like not to be distracted by the horses or other wildlife, nor do I want anything too beautiful in my capacious study.

So I don’t allow the present Mrs. K in the room, her being just too beautiful, and in reality the lawns are not too big, and the room is quite cosy and tight. Best described in bijou descriptions as intimate. In fact, once you’re in here you need to keep trim or you won’t be able to make the turn to get out.

On my walls are a selection of pictures, posters and awards that either I or my late father won. Happily we did win quite a few, and its great when one catches your eye and sparks a happy memory. It inspires me, the knowledge that we can achieve anything we want if we set our mind to it. I guess, in a much bigger way, that’s what Barack Obama feels right now, and all those people who have been treated as something less because of the colour of their skin, the way they talk or look, or their religion. He proves that anyone can do anything.

When I still kept a formal office I had a different set of pictures on those walls. I keep them in storage now. They were to remind me of the films, the people and the deals I should have avoided. In every case the temptation to repeat the same mistakes did recur, and the pictures made sure I was able to resist. I think a wise and successful person is someone with ability, energy and the common sense not to repeat the same mistakes.

Mistake number one would be my taking another office when someone tempts me to do so, and that means those pictures will have to remain in storage!

I saw Quantum of Solace, the latest James Bond film that just opened. Of course, you must accept my comments in the context of this film being a smash hit. After all, what do we, the audience know, when the box office numbers are so big, and contradict what we see with our own eyes. But having seen the film I still don’t really know what the title or the story was all about, and quite frankly, don’t care.

The truth is that the latest 007 offering comes up short on its James Bondness.

Where were the unique “Bond” ingredients we all love? For sure we all enjoyed some great Bond type action, and Daniel Craig has added to the thrill quotient with his sublime physicality. The man is a human pinball, I don’t know how he is still in one piece after some of the most dangerous stunts every performed by a leading man on screen.

The women are still beautiful, sexy, charming and available, and no red blooded man would say no in the unlikely eventuality of being alone in a room with such well rounded and alluring girls.

The script, music, photography, costumes, make up and hair are all fine, but none are great, and that’s the case with a lot of the parts making up this whole. They just are not exceptional.

Worst of all the direction is just a bit heavy handed, Marc Forster, is a really good technician, but not a great artist. He doesn’t, this time around, demonstrate a lightness of touch that Bond demands. To capture the hearts and imagination of a wide Bond audience you have to bring some charm to the event, and there is none in this stolid, somewhat stodgy concoction. The film feels long but actually is shorter than many recent Bond movies, and this is a very bad sign.

Daniel Craig is still a fine choice for the role of Bond, but he wasn’t well served by this screenplay or director.

Another fault with the film’s story structure is that it has Judy Dench as M, Bond’s boss, popping up all over the place to confront Bond. I stand at the front of the line of Dench admirers for her acting ability, but it simply made no sense in this story for M to be swanning around all over the world and it resulted in some very poor situations for the film.

I don’t want you to read this thinking that it’s all bad, far from it, the action sequences are electrifying in parts, and dizzying in others. It also seems as if Bond has cornered the market in climbing up and down buildings without the need for stairs, and this alone is probably worth the price of admission for younger parts of the audience. The car chase sequence is amazing, but you do find yourself thinking of other films like this which are out there these days, and cover the same kind of territory. Most clearly the rival for this market is now the team making the Bourne film franchise. It would be a very good idea for the Bond people to go back to their own roots before they allow Bond to become just another action flick series that will soon die from a lack of warmth at its human core.

Bond has become predictable, a bit too worthy and dark. It would be wonderful if someone reminded the cast to smile.

Now about that title…I know, I’ll write a list.

First published in British magazine “Punch” on April 3,  1957:

Q: What are banks for?
A: To make money.
Q: For the customers?
A: For the banks.
Q: Why doesn’t bank advertising mention this?
A: It would not be in good taste. But it is mentioned by implication in  references to reserves of $249,000,000,000 or thereabouts. That is the money they have made.
Q: Out of the customers?
A: I suppose so.
Q: They also mention Assets of $500,000,000,000 or thereabouts. Have they made that too?
A: Not exactly. That is the money they use to make money.
Q: I see. And they keep it in a safe somewhere?
A: Not at all. They lend it to customers.
Q: Then they haven’t got it?
A: No.
Q: Then how is it Assets?
A: They maintain that it would be if they got it back.
Q: But they must have some money in a safe somewhere?
A: Yes, usually $500,000,000,000 or thereabouts. This is called Liabilities.
Q: But if they’ve got it, how can they be liable for it?
A: Because it isn’t theirs.
Q: Then why do they have it?
A: It has been lent to them by customers.
Q: You mean customers lend banks money?
A: In effect. They put money into their accounts, so it is really lent to the  banks.
Q: And what do the banks do with it?
A: Lend it to other customers.
Q: But you said that money they lent to other people was Assets?
A: Yes.
Q: Then Assets and Liabilities must be the same thing?
A: You can’t really say that.
Q: But you’ve just said it! If I put $100 into my account the bank is liable  to have to pay it back, so it’s Liabilities. But they go and lend it to  someone else, and he is liable to have to pay it back, so it’s Assets. It’s  the same $100 isn’t it?
A: Yes, but….
Q: Then it cancels out. It means, doesn’t it, that banks haven’t really any  money at all?
A: Theoretically……
Q: Never mind theoretically! And if they haven’t any money, where do they get  their Reserves of $249,000,000,000 or thereabouts??
A: I told you. That is the money they have made.
Q: How?
A: Well, when they lend your $100 to someone they charge him interest. Q: How much?
A: It depends on the Bank Rate. Say five and a-half percent. That’s their  profit.
Q: Why isn’t it my profit? Isn’t it my money?
A: It’s the theory of banking practice that………
Q: When I lend them my $100 why don’t I charge them interest?
A: You do.
Q: You don’t say. How much?
A: It depends on the Bank Rate. Say a half percent.
Q: Grasping of me, rather?
A: But that’s only if you’re not going to draw the money out again.
Q: But of course I’m going to draw the money out again! If I hadn’t wanted to  draw it out again I could have buried it in the garden!
A: They wouldn’t like you to draw it out again.
Q: Why not? If I keep it there you say it’s a Liability. Wouldn’t they be  glad if I reduced their Liabilities by removing it?
A: No. Because if you remove it they can’t lend it to anyone else.
Q: But if I wanted to remove it they’d have to let me?
A: Certainly.
Q: But suppose they’ve already lent it to another customer?
A: Then they’ll let you have some other customers money.
Q: But suppose he wants his too….and they’ve already let me have it?
A: You’re being purposely obtuse.
Q: I think I’m being acute. What if everyone wanted their money all at once?
A: It’s the theory of banking practice that they never would.
Q: So what banks bank on, is not having to meet their commitments?
A: I wouldn’t say that.
Q: Naturally. Well, if there’s nothing else you think you can tell me….?
A: Quite so. Now you can go off and open a banking account!
Q: Just one last question.
A: Of course.

Q: Wouldn’t I do better to go off and open up a bank?

It’s West London, just puffing at the fag end of the Second World War. It’s a very different place to the vibrant, colourful London of the present. England is a shambling wreck of a place. It should be great, after all we won, but the price has been very high. Too many men who fought haven’t come home, or the experience of being away, fighting for so many years has changed them, lessened some, made others bigger, but blunted the edges of most.

The women got used to making their own way, earning their own money, making their own fun. Some of them have learned how to say no, and its from here, this point of time, that women realized they didn’t have to continue with the old ways anymore.

The children are going to be different, bound to be.

Post war London is pock marked with bombsites and unsafe buildings. Everything is grey and a bit dirty, dust seems to encrust our lives. There are still tram-lines in some parts of the town, and overhead wires for the trolley buses. Shiny lino is on the floor of our houses, and the fires are made with coal. There is little fruit out of season, and its exotic to have a black and white television. Radio is the national entertainment. Big girls still wear stockings and pointy bras. Bloody hell, they still ration some sweets!

Despite the odd unexploded bomb its considered safe to play outside with your mates. If there are any child molesters around we don’t know anything about them. Life for children is a perfect idyll; you play outside until it gets dark.

But the shops are shut tight on Sundays and after closing time, which is usually 6 sharp. There are hardly any people in England who are not white British people. Being a second generation Brit I am considered more than a bit exotic.

The country, the whole world, might be ready to explode into the sixties, but the fifties were, in fact the fag end of the war years and a mentality and class structure that was Edwardian.

I have been commenting on the two BBC “entertainers” Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross here, there and everywhere I cannot draw a line.

Therefore, I apologize to those of you who usually read me at http://www.bcreativelimited.blogspot.com/

You could have already read a substantial part of the following article.

It is becoming clear that the BBC is now mounting a huge damage limitation and charm offensive, and this is clearly long overdue. One of the most annoying aspects of this whole matter is the huge arrogance and contempt of the BBC higher echelons towards the public who pay their wages until a scandal breaks upon these smug fiefdoms of self centered mutual mental masturbation. How can the BBC management be this out of touch with the public consensus about what is decent and acceptable and what is not?

It seems fairly obvious that Russell Brand isn’t too concerned about anything other than the publicity this storm in a teacup is generating since today, not too remorseful, he is stepping on a jet to appear in his next American movie. Both Brand and Ross are, no doubt, being advised what to say, and how to say it, by expert PR spin doctors, and that is also an unappealing aspect of this stage of the farce. They both appear to be patently insincere in their apologies, however fulsome the words. I have had many a meeting with these PR gurus in their Soho clubs, and this kind of situation is their meat and drink. The PR teams and the lawyers will be rubbing their hands in glee at the huge fees they are about to charge all concerned.

Jonathan Ross is reported to fear that he has lost his BBC career. Many years ago there was a man called  Simon Dee, and he lost his job on TV for being offensive to his bosses. Dee was the spiritual god father of this kind of presenter as a personality broadcasting. Dee thought, like Ross and Brand, that he had become bigger than the medium he inhabited. He found out, to his great cost, that this was not the case, and he never recovered professionally or personally.

I like Jonathan Ross as a presenter most of the time, particularly on the radio, where he can be very funny, but he needs to know he is not bigger than the media that allows him such fame and fortune. There is no need to be cruel to be funny. It’s time to grow up Jonathan.

We are now witnessing the ritual public humiliation of those found to affront the public taste. They are Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross, two very naughty man boys, Russell now in his thirties and Jonathan in his late forties. Their BBC paymasters suspended them, on full pay. They had broadcast a very offensive radio 2 show and it has created a tsunami of a reaction and become an even bigger issue this week than the credit crunch.

Russell Brand said, “I think it was a really, really silly thing to do. It happened in the spirit of the moment, I didn’t want to upset Andrew Sachs, particularly because I really admire him and his work as an actor. I didn’t want to apologize publicly before because it might seem I was apologizing for the reaction rather to the person I had offended. The reason I hadn’t apologized to Georgina, and I do intend to, is because I’m frankly embarrassed to do so.” It’s a great pity that Brand waited until there was a huge public revulsion before he offered a proper and fulsome apology.

Brand then resigned from his radio show. A contrite looking Brand went on to say, “ I was silly enough to speak without thinking, and I shouldn’t have done so. I apologize to Andrew Sachs for any upset I might have caused him.”

Andrew Sachs, the main offended party said, “These are two performers, I’m a performer, sometimes, you get it very wrong, and then you have to do better.” His granddaughter, Georgina, who Brand and Ross had said intimate things about said, “I’m thrilled because justice has been done.”

Ross’s Friday show recording was cancelled tonight. As Ross said, “It was juvenile and a stupid error of judgment.”

Of course something had to be done, and seen to be done. I called for the dismissal of both these men for their outrageous, illegal and obscene phone calls to the actor Andrew Sachs. I won’t recount the whole incident; you can look up my previous blog, and the millions of other articles and blogs that this controversy has generated in the last days.

Suffice it to say that the men have, apparently now realized that they have really screwed up. The BBC went into full grovel mode, with a succession of their middle and finally most senior management issuing total and self abasing apologizes.

Of course this was too little and too late. The BBC has been behind the curve on this issue throughout, which is incredible in these days of emergency preparedness for any and all contingencies. If they had dealt promptly with this unfolding problem would have been diminished to almost no significance.

As it is the number of complaints to the BBC has, so far, topped 27,000 with something like 99.5% apparently against Brand and Ross. There are also some people, almost all younger, and mostly the more youthful demographic of radio 1, who argue that these are just edgy comedians pushing at the limits of what’s acceptable as modern comedy is meant to do.

Now the BBC must hold a very fast enquiry and tell us how this pre-recorded program was allowed on air?

Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross were clearly bouncing off each other, and the safety net is supposed to be the production team.

So how was it then possible that the producer could play this material and then OK it for broadcast?

What kind of training did this producer receive?

How could the producer have made this judgment after telephoning Andrew Sachs to discuss his feelings about what was proposed, and despite Sachs asking the producer not to broadcast it?

Why were there no BBC guidelines for this scenario in place for an obviously inexperienced producer?

It’s bad enough that this kind of show could get on air, let’s make certain it doesn’t happen again. But we don’t want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. We still want comedy, and edgy is fine, but that doesn’t mean its open season on those that can’t defend themselves.

What I don’t like is what happened over the weekend to Andrew Sachs via the Russell Brand radio 2 show which Brand was hosting with Jonathan Ross as his guest. On a recorded program they telephoned Andrew Sachs, purportedly to talk about the latter’s time playing the part of the put upon Spanish waiter, Manuel, in the classic TV series, Fawlty Towers and his later career.

Remember this was a recorded program.

When the two comedians and BBC star personalities called, for some reason the 78 year old Sachs was not at home to answer. Instead of replacing the receiver, no harm done, after all this was all being recorded and not going out live, Brand and Ross proceeded to make obscene remarks about Sachs to their audience.

Brand claimed that the elephant in the room, what Andrew doesn’t know is, I’ve slept with his grand daughter, a claim the young lady, Georgina, has since vehemently denied. Ross then calls out, “he f….d your granddaughter!”

This wasn’t enough for the pair of jolly japers who went on to leave another three, increasingly explicit messages. Brand and Ross went on to sing songs on the same explicit theme and then, in the background Ross sings, “Your granddaughter….she was bent over the couch.”

The broadcasters then went one step further, in which they imagined Andrew Sachs committing suicide because of their sketch.

I have listened to the broadcast and the truth is that it just isn’t funny, it’s a stream of consciousness that was going wrong from its start. However, there was a way out for the BBC, because, BEFORE it was broadcast they had two opportunities to pull this section of the recording.

First the powers that be were played this section of the show and they allowed it on air, but not before the producers telephoned Andrew Sachs to ask if he was offended by this pre-recorded segmant. He told them that he was, he specifically asked for the calls not to be broadcast to the show’s 2 million listeners but the producers went ahead anyway.

Sachs also sent a formal e-mail of complaint to Lesley Douglas the radio 2 Controller and didn’t receive a reply.

The BBC now admits it made a mistake and apologized as did their two star broadcasters. There were 69 initial complaints and the MediaWatch spokesman, John Beyer stated , “permission should never have been given for the calls to be aired.” He added, “What were they thinking? How would Mark Thompson (BBC Director General) feel if these kind of comments were made about his daughter?”

Has the BBC totally lost its way that it didn’t see anything wrong in this kind of cruel and inhumane behavior? It is, I suppose, somewhat understandable that their two big headed comedians, pumped up with too much self importance, too much fame and too much money think they’re above the rules and laws and regulations that govern the rest of us. But the BBC is an organization that has to know better. It is our national broadcaster, and we pay for it.

We have the right to demand it meets its self imposed rules as a minimum. A belated apology is not sufficient, and quite rightly there needs to be punishment, and it needs to be obvious. How about, instead of sacking a sacrificial lamb of a lowly producer or two, sacking either Brand and or Ross, or at least fining them a piece of their salary to be paid to a charity of Mister Sachs choice. After all, Ross at £6 million per year, and Brand at £1 million a year, can afford to show us some generosity, and that way we can all get to laugh!

What would really demonstrate contrition is the BBC demonstrating it has not lost all its morality by sacking Roos and Brand, the two jerks deserve it. Failing which I believe there are ground for a prosecution against Brand and Roos and their producers and the BBC for making obscene phone calls.