Edit: ignored (merk)

I think this whole issue has actually become detached from its catalyst: I don’t find what Brand and Ross said actually very funny (nor very offensive, having listened to it. It’s not big and clever but it wasn’t obscene, in my view), but they should have the right to say whatever the fuck they want.

HOWEVER, the kicker comes in them being tied to the BBC by contract, and so they have a responsibility to the BBC, which stems from its responsibility to ‘us’. Some of ‘us’ got all angry, others didn’t. The BBC was pressured into sacking/suspending etc, and so it did. Etc etc. If they were speaking as ‘private’ citizens, then fine, but the whole issue stems from the BBC as an institution in relation to employee action, and yes, lots of people here probably disapprove of it in that sense.

BUT I think what riles most people here is the hypocrisy of the extrapolated narrative. No, Brand and Ross weren’t funny, but as far as I’m concerned, Sachs has accept the apology and asked everyone to move on. But wait! It’s been used as stick with which to beat the BBC/anything the Mail doesn’t like. That’s wrong, hytpocritical and utterly foul (given their history, their trends and narratives and their utter cynicism dressed up as morality), and far more offensive to me than a bad joke played on an old man, even in bad taste.