It's time for the BBC to get off the fence that Jonathan Ross built

Seven months after Jonathan Ross was suspended and Russell Brand resigned from the BBC following prank phone calls to veteran actor Andrew Sachs, the broadcasting corporation has made the decision to pre-record Ross’ Saturday morning radio show. In a statement that firmly avoids eye contact with the elephant in the room that is the comedian’s crass and crude humour, the BBC said the move was a precautionary measure to ensure the show is “watertight”, and that pre-recording their shows is common practice. We can all await the pre-recording of Terry Wogan’s show then, presumably.

Needless to say I don’t enjoy Ross’ brand of humour. I find him sleazy and embarrassing, and certainly not worth the £6 million a year price tag he comes attached with. His Friday night television show is a brilliant showcasing of self-indulgence (there would almost be no need for guests at all, were Ross not so keen on inappropriate jokes directed at pretty young women) and his radio show a continuous cause for apology from the BBC, following sarcastic comments about the Sachs affair, and casual homophobia that led to this recent development.

Despite that, I thought the Sachs affair was a textbook case of Daily Mail moral hysteria about something that wasn’t really that offensive at all when compared to the daily hate campaign against immigrants, single parents and the working class vomited out by that very newspaper on a regular basis. Neither do I have the arrogance to demand someone be sacked because I don’t personally find them to my liking. Ross is a hugely popular entertainer, and indeed I can think of more offensive characters who broadcast on BBC radio. Every weekday morning.

The problem, though, is that the BBC now has had to come down on one side of this debate, and firmly landed on neither. If Ross is as much as a threat to BBC dignity as the corporation apparently sees him, it is time he was rid of. Perhaps one day it will rue the day its schedule was dictated by moral reactionaries, but if this is the path the BBC seems to be taking it is no use walking halfway there then faltering with an incompetent hesitancy. On the other hand, if Ross is such a valuable asset, worth every penny of the 1000 journalists’ salaries he is treated to, the BBC must press on in support of its star, cease apologising and back-bending and put two fingers up to censorship, fighting off middle-England and Offcom as it goes. Either way, if the BBC sits on this ever more unstable fence for much longer Ross will continue to be more of a nuisance than he needs to be.

Let's just make Susan Boyle Prime Minister and be done with it...

There are doubtless more important headlines to put on the front page of a 3 million-a-day-readership national newspaper than “JOANNA LUMLEY FOR PM”, but given the Sun’s benchmark of significance normally settles just under Peter Andre’s divorce proceedings, we can all let it go. Or, perhaps more accurately, most of us can let it go, while the broadsheet newspapers fall over themselves with polls, discussions and debates about whether Gordan Brown should be replaced by the star of a 90s sitcom.

That’s not to say Lumley’s recent campaign for the Gurkhas wasn’t an important issue, but asking readers whether this qualifies her to run the government is just lazy political journalism. Try asking yourself how you might answer the question. It might go something like this: “Well, hmm, what are her policies on the economy? Er... well I’d have to know her tax rates and such...Erm...I mean I need to make an informed decision...” Well done for turning a light hearted discussion into Question Time, David Dimbleby.

Ok, so maybe I’m taking it all too seriously. But then what to make of the question? The answer these polls are revealing is essentially something more like, “well of course I probably wouldn’t actually vote her for PM if there was some sort of referendum, but I recognise that this is a light hearted question with little to no relevance, and I think her Gurkha campaign was good, so I’ll answer yes.” This all seems a little pointless to me. Perhaps it’s time the media got over the gimmicks of personality and focused on policy, before we vote in another buffoon because he was quite funny on a quiz show.

This week Tom finally finished his essays that have taken up the last few weeks, and looks forward to writing more blog articles.

Four Hitlers out of five

Richard Barnbrook, Greater London Assembly Member for the British National Party has caused a stir by his stated intention to take BNP leader and hate-fiend Nick Griffin as his date to a bash held by the Queen at Buckingham Palace - and who said the BNP were homophobic?

The real point that no one seems to mention about Barnbrook is that his choice of clothing and hairstyle are worryingly Hitler-esque.

Figure 1 shows Richard Bumchin looking quite a lot like a Nazi Brownshirt (who, whilst the blackshirts were more sinister and subtle in their actions, from what I can gather provided the mindless thuggery of the Nazi regime). It's interesting to note figure 2, an image of Barnbrook flanked by two large men who could very easily be described as thugs. Then figure 3, the best Hitler impression I've seen since the 1997 BNP Party Election Broadcast (the audio at the beginning is slightly bizarre but be sure to be watching at 1:23 for footage of Mosques and black people with the line "Is this what our war heroes fought for?").

Look this man in the eyes. Think about Year 9 History lessons. It might be difficult to recall the facts but something like 6 million Jews and numerous other minority groups were murdered by an autocratic regime. This must never happen again. We are facing a plethora of Nationalist MEPs being elected on June 4th across the continent. Fortunately we can count on them being poor at organisation and more importantly at international diplomacy and toleration of different cultures and nationalities. But we must not rely on them tripping themselves over. Vote on June 4th for anyone, anyone but them.

From each according to his ability; to each according to his need

The famous maxim "from each according to his ability; to each according to his need" is attributed to Marx and is the core principle of socialism. It seems slightly distasteful that Labour MPs, from a party committed to Democratic Socialism, see it appropriate to take material goods regardless of their need, perhaps more distasetful than Conservatives funding taxpayers for moat-cleaning (after all Conservative ideology is based on the individual and self-determination; their MPs have simply lived up to their selfish ideals).

It is somewhat true that the expenses debacle has been completely blown out of proportion to the point of obsession. It is a symptom of a wider, systemic problem. If the government and politicians in general were taking moral actions and decisions with greater public support, the electorate would have little issue with such matters. It is unlikely that Churchill and Attlee, even Heath and Wilson would be harangued for taking liberties with expenses payouts. It is the impression of politicians - not just the media - that makes this scandal so much worse. It is the failure by all major parties to acknowledge defeat. No one wants Trident to be replaced; no one supports the morally hollow foreign policy agenda; no one wishes financial ruin on graduates; no one wants ID cards and detention without charge.