That Russell brand thing

First, we had the credit crunch. Then the death of capitalism (until next year, when it re-invents itself once more). Then the US election. Then Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross, a combination of hair that would give Albert Einstein a run for its money and a very highly paid speech impediment, stir the righteous horror of the British people.

Being without a TV, I’ve only followed this online, and through Radio 4. I first heard about the scandal whilst playing with the puppies at Dan’s house on Wednesday lunchtime. It was the main headline and everybody had something to say about it. If you’ve been living in anywhere other than England, the basic story is that Russell Brand (the hair) and Jonathan Ross (the money) called Andrew Sachs (old man who was once in Fawlty Towers, the show with John Cleese hitting a car with a branch repeatedly) and left lewd, lurid and otherwise terrible messages for him.

It took 30,000 complaints for the BBC to do something, and there has been a righteous outcry, the equivalent of a village wielding pitchforks and torches to run the scourge out of town. Commentaries have been made from all sides. Most of it is aimed at trying to work out why everybody was so affronted. A comedian thought it was because you don’t pick on the weak. Comedy is fun if you take the piss out of yourself, the rich, the famous and the stupidly powerful. Comedy is bullying if you take the piss out of grandparents and people who are otherwise defenseless. Other people have said it’s because it was vile or depraved.

What struck me about it was that it sounded like the kind of thing that’s funny to teenagers with nothing to do of a night wanting to look tough to their friends, and after the age of thirteen or so, it’s not so much comedy as harassment. Well, in fact it’s just daft. I struggle to understand what’s so hilarious about it, unless you’ve got a mental age of about 12. I also struggle to understand why people are so offended by it. I’m led to understand that this isn’t about the complaint, but about the story itself.

There is a theory about complaining that says it isn’t the subject of the complaint that matters. Many similar things happen on TV but only one of those might get a surge of complaints. It all depends on a combination of media hyping the story and people knowing that other people have complained. After all, this is Britain and if there’s one thing we’re famous for, it’s not complaining. We will whine over a really bad meal to our companions but when the waiter asks if everything’s to our satisfaction we nod and tell him it’s all fine. That’s how we are. But when a certain number of people complain, it becomes a story, then other people complain because the sheer number of complaints so far suggest that in this case, Righteous Indignation is acceptable. In other cases, complaining about something like this might make you look like you didn’t have a sense of humour.

One commentator in the Spectator compared the prank calls with Andrew Sachs’ father’s experience in Nazi Germany. Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross were suddenly being referred to as modern-day Gestapo. Now, I have to agree that maybe it isn’t in the best possible taste to call up somebody and prattle on about your sexual capacity with his granddaughter, but it doesn’t honestly, really seriously, compare in any way shape or form with being dragged out of your house in the middle of the night and beaten, or carted away to a death camp. The two things are not the same. This isn’t persecution here.

I was bullied at school, so I know a bit about being a victim of this kind of thing. It’s all harmless fun, say the bullies, you just don’t get the joke. Well, of course not, because they’re laughing at you. That kind of fun is intended to make fun of the fact that firstly you can’t fight back without looking like you’ve had a sense of humour transplant, and secondly the people doing it want to push back the envelope a little. Be edgy, dangerous, and see what they can get away with. It’s a far cry, though, from assuming that this is the same as gassing millions of people in fake shower rooms. There’s a difference between genocide and bullying.

I’m not defending either Brand or Ross. They were playing risky humour to be risky, and hey look, the risk came back and bit them on the ass. It’s not the kind of thing I find remotely funny, but that’s just because I prefer people like Eddie Izzard. The general public just doesn’t like behaviour that reminds them of teenagers who irritate them and can’t be controlled, and I guess don’t want to see it on TV. Making yourself look hip and cool is one thing, but doing it by those means just makes you look… well, dumb. The whole thing looks like a storm in not merely a teacup but a thimble.

And what the hell is the Prime Minister doing commenting on this? The global economy is in crisis, the USA might elect a woman who thinks being able to see a country from where she lives means she knows all about it to be almost-president, and there are five million people in danger of starvation in Zimbabwe. Not to mention everything else going on. Surely, surely he has something better to be doing with his time?

One thing it does make me glad of, though: I don’t have a TV, so avoiding it all is so much easier.