The Sun carries a report today that the BBC is going to lay down a series of rules which Jonathan Ross must obey on his return. These include not swearing or making "sexually suggestive remarks".
This will no doubt be seen as a victory for good taste, and for the 30,000 or so people who complained about his crass comments on Andrew Sachs's voicemail. It seems to me, however, a massive loss to those of us (still, despite former Telegraph editor Charles Moore's best efforts, a majority) who pay the licence fee.
Personally, I don't find Ross very funny. That said, when the BBC negotiated his £18m three year deal, it was based on the fact that lots of people do find him funny. They were paying for a service, and the service Ross offers is to be irreverent and, often, "sexually suggestive".
If the Sun's report is right and these rules are being handed down today, then the BBC ought to sack Jonathan Ross. It's an admission they got his hiring wrong and he's more trouble than he's worth. Isn't it just illogical, confused pandering to continue to broadcast him, and to pay him what was originally agreed, but not let him perform freely? I'd rather a victory for the Mail on Sunday's campaign to get rid of him than a victory for quiet censorship and wing-clipping.
While on the subject of the Ross/Sachs business, Emily Maitliss was very funny in this week's early and bumper edition of The Spectator. Writing about her most embarrassing moment of the year, she remembers the time she somehow managed to conflate Jonathan Ross and Andrew Sachs into one person and accused the Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, of involvement.
