I know that it is Halloween, and as such Satanic Sluts etc are de rigueur.
However, please could someone explain to me why the arch Nanny herself, Gordon "Smiler" Brown, in the midst of the greatest economic crisis since 1487 (or thereabouts) felt it necessary to take time to intervene in the Brand/Ross "I shagged her" school boy boasting saga?
Surely Nanny has better things to do with her time?
Am I alone in thinking that everyone will do very well out of this financially, and that Nanny Brown has merely added to the PR value of said storm in a teacup?
Visit The Orifice of Government Commerce and buy a collector's item.
Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.
Show your contempt for Nanny by buying a T shirt or thong from Nanny's Store.
www.nannyknowsbest.com is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"
Celebrate the joy of living with champagne. Click and drink!
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Toys, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
Ken this is totally OT so my apologies, but other readers of your thread might like to wander over to Tom Harris MP's blog to publicly express their views of Nanny. (LPUK has organised a campaign to send each MP a copy of '1984', to arrive on 5th November; Tom Harris received his early and has blogged, soliciting some 116 comments, 99% of which take Tom Harris and Nanny to task.)
ReplyDeleteAs for the Beeb Scandal, I smiled wryly when I read a report the other day in the Mail (which seems to have started the furore last Sunday). It printed, verbatim, other Beeb comdedians' gags which it considered to be equally offensive and, without a trace of irony, apologised to its readers for offending any of them. Says it all, really.
Jay
Ken,
ReplyDeleteI could not agree more but then he always jumps on passing issues for which he knows he will never have to make a decision.
As for the broadcast and subsequent furore; I have no time for Brand and very little for Ross and his over inflated pay packet. Sadly I think your are right and that they will all get something positive from events in the long run. Perhaps even Andrew Sachs, though any financial gain may be offset by what he has learned about his granddaughter. A cynic might suggest he already knew ...
As I understand it Ofcom had 2 initial complaints about the show when it was broadcast, one from Sachs and the other from the show's listener. The rest came later, presumably from press reports that published a full transcript. One might think that a strange thing to do.
I wonder if the real scandal might be that Brand was paid 200k p.a. to host a radio show with hardly any listeners.
If only one had the right not to pay the BBC tax if one felt a lack of value for money.
Moreover, given Mandy's re-habilitation in UK politics, I'm surprised he felt morally able to raise his head above the parapet. Still, the 21st century UK seems willing to put up with, even laud, standards that would not have been acceptable last century. Such is the progress of civilisation.
Grant
n that basi
Jay,
ReplyDeleteHave I missed something or has Mr. Harris's blog gone off line?
I can;t get any of the Google search links to work at the moment.
Grant
Grant,
ReplyDeleteIt might have while he was posting his response to the (now 128 comments)but here is a link:
http://tomcharris.wordpress.com/2008/10/30/an-orwellian-nightmare-oh-wake-up/
Jay
Jay,
ReplyDeleteThanks.
Very interesting.
Grant
Ken,
ReplyDeleteWe went through something perhaps marginally similar in the States with government arts funds used to subsidize photos of crucifixes submerged in urine (oh, how daring!), men with bullwhips rammed up their asses, sorry arses, (oh, how liberating!) and so forth.
All a bit of a tempest in a teapot on the one hand, but on the other it's perfectly understandable to resent being forced, under penality of law, to subsidize this sort of now hardly scandalous, run-of-the-mill, enfant terrible fare. I am including the Brand/Ross affair here as well.
I am all for people who feel this sort of thing provides "value for the money" as you put it, to voluntarily subsidize it with their own money. But then again, my understanding is that one mandate of the BBC is to uphold high cultural standards unbesmirched by vulgarizing market pressures. How's that working out so far?
The whole nonsensical brouhaha is pretty obviously a deliberately contrived 'spin' to distract public attention from Real World issues such as the economic crisis and who said what to whom on the billionaires' yachts.
ReplyDeleteAm I being too fanciful in sniffing the smelly fingers of 'Prince of Darkness' Mandelson in sparking off this one?
Great post, Ken!
ReplyDeleteThe symbolism is indeed, very intriguing.
A classic example of Pluto in Capricorn?
Well, as it happens, even more news comes out into to light:
http://exploringthemysterious.blogspot.com/2008/11/ross-brand-and-bbc.html
best wishes
ETM
If I or any 'ordinary' member of the public, i'e., non celebrity had made a phone call of this nature to someone, and a complaint was made, I rather think the outcome would have been a visit from the 'boys in blue' followed by a court appearance as, if I understand the law, it was technically a criminal offence. As it is, I personally think that they should have been sacked on the spot along with whoever authorised this to go ahead. Sadly, however, as Grant wrote in his last paragraph, the 21st century UK seems willing to put up with, even laud, standards that would not have been acceptable last century.
ReplyDeleteit was the final straw in an already over reported 'news story'. I had little faith in the PM before he jumped on the band wagon.
ReplyDelete