The BBC is a national treasure. I do not applaude what Brand and Ross did, but the item was pre-recorded. The editorial policies must be held accountable for broadcast, not the performers.

If it was live, Ross and Brand would be toast, but the media storm negates the simple fact that only two people complained before the Mail on Sunday picked the story up.

Brand and Ross have a puerile sense of humour. I actually quite enjoy Ross on tv, in a slightly Friday night mellow kind of way, and I like his radio show. It is not for everyone. Yes, they crossed the line, but the fuss about his salary is ridiculous. He was offered the money presumably because it was market rate for someone who does what he does. The BBC has to both compete for ratings to justify itself, and provide a huge range of content. It is, rightly, the envy of the world. Not everything is right, but this is one hell of a storm in a teacup.

I agree that, on the whole, the BBC does more good than harm but when it gets things wrong it gets them very wrong. This is I think partly due to its overwhelming desire to appear 'relevant' to youth audiences at pretty much any cost.

On another note I agree that before the MoS splash the programme had received hardly any complaints. But just because few people listened to the show does that make it right that any offensive content can be broadcast by a station that is publicly funded? I'd argue not.

If it hadn't been the MoS but the Guardian that had exposed the story, would the accusation still be the same that this was about petty points scoring?

I just hope the witch hunt against the BBC doesn't go too far. I'm glad Ross has been suspended given the vastly inflated salary he's on and that the Radio 2 controller finally did the decent thing and resigned but that should be an end to it. It would be a nightmare if the BBC's output was dictated by rival media organisations with an axe to grind.