Have had the start of a cold for most of the week, it seems to be coming on strong today so a quiet one today, leading up to the Grand Prix later.

Talking of which, I hope Lewis does OK today. Of the two drivers in contention, I'd rather Hamilton wins, I just don't think Massa is a good enough driver to have a world title. Look at Silverstone - he span 4 times in the rain!

Time will tell, roll on 5pm!

Not much to say today really, it's been a busy one.

I listened to the Oasis gig as part of the Electric Proms last night. They played the Roundhouse in London and while Liam's voice started off rougher than an dodgy curry, it got better as the gig went on. However, the addition of a large choir added a completely different element to certain tracks, especially the cover of "I Am The Walrus", which has been an Oasis encore track (they usually finish gigs with it) for a very long time. It's brilliant, and for everyone who knocks them as a band would do well to check it out.

Music wise, there has been a lot of Beatles on the go again in the car. I adore "Revolver", but I feel the need to expand the selection on the old iPod so think a few will be added to the old Amazon wish list, in the vain hope someone pays attention to it this year!

Jealously is a terrible mistress

So Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand have been a bit daft haven't they. However, the outrage it's caused makes interesting analysis. I'll point something out before I start here though - I'm not a particular fan of Brand or Ross, nor do I dislike them. But I do think they are being treated unfairly in this row.

Day of the pre-recorded broadcast, only 2 people complained. Out of a large number of listeners, only 2 people thought it was offensive. It stayed like that until the press got hold of it. So what are the motivations behind the outrage? Even Andrew Sachs hadn't complained until a journalist asked him about it, and that was nearly 4 days after the broadcast!

Brand and Ross are characters, you like them or you don't. People are using this incident as an excuse to try and force the BBC to get rid of them, which they have managed in Brands case, but I don't think they will with Ross, he is too valuable to the BBC. ITV would snap him up in a minute.

Most people who complained seem to say that "with Ross salary, he should know better", "I resent the money he earns" etc. Now, what has salary to do with it? His position as a senior broadcaster on the BBC has relevance, his salary doesn't - don't let your prejudice for how much you think he is overpaid cloud your view of the issue.

So forget about the money they may or may not earn. Forget about the personalities involved. Base your complaint on what was said and done.

Having read the transcript and listened again, yes, they went over the line. Yes, they said things that would upset a grandfather in his 70s and they shouldn't have done it. Yes, they should be reprimanded for it. Surely we've all been in the pub when a conversation has flowed and crossed the line. But would we get sacked? how does that help anyone? Put it this way, if we all were sacked for making an error of judgement at work, I think we'd all have a different perspective on what the punishment should be. Would you want that hanging over you every day? Nobody would make a decision!

I really despair at the state of this country when a media witch hunt can get people sacked. They may be on TV, but they are still people at the end of the day. If it was you, or your family, or your friend that had been hounded the way the press have, how would you feel? They've apologised, and are properly remorseful about it, move on, nothing to see...

You have to wonder about people in marketing.

Microsoft have finally got into cloud computing, having announced a new platform to run it all on. In a moment of genius, they have named it Microsoft Azure.

Azure means a light shade of blue, which in turn implies a cloudless sky.

As I say, genius.