In reaction to an independent BBC review on taste and standards commissioned after offensive comments about actor Andrew Sachs created a public outcry, the BBC Trust has said that the most offensive language should only be used in “exceptional circumstances” on BBC One between 9 and 10 p.m.

Editorial guidelines should clarify that BBC should not make programmes that “celebrate or condone gratuitous, aggressive, intrusive and humiliating behaviour,” the Trust ruled, recognizing that “licence fee payers can distinguish between comedy and satire, which they appreciate, and unjustified humiliation, of which they disapprove.”

The study, which polled 2,700 participants, finds that viewers don’t want more censorship or regulation.

“Most people value the creativity of the BBC and accept it may sometimes result in people being offended.”

What do you think? Should BBC allow swearing on air?

Updated to include Jeremy Clarkson’s statement of apology

Another day, another scandal at the BBC. Earlier this week the Beeb announced that Carol Thatcher will no longer work on The One Show after she was reported for an off-air remark. The daughter of former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher referred to a tennis player as a “golliwog”.

Now Top Gear presenter Jeremy Clarkson has landed the network in hot water yet again. Speaking to journalists in Sydney, the host reportedly called Gordon Brown a “one-eyed Scottish idiot”. The prime minister lost the sight in one eye when he was a teenager and Scottish politicians are furious at the remark.

Clarkson is no stranger to controversy. Late last year the BBC received 1,800 complaints when Clarkson made a joke about lorry drivers murdering prostitutes following the conviction of Steve Wright in Ipswich.

The outspoken presenter has since apologised, saying: “In the heat of the moment I made a remark about the Prime Minister’s personal appearance for which, upon reflection, I apologise.” The BBC has said that it will take no further action.

This of course follows the scandal involving talk show host Jonathan Ross and radio presenter Russell Brand, which engulfed the BBC in October last year. The pair made several prank calls to Fawlty Towers actor Andrew Sachs on Brand’s Radio 2 show. Brand quit the BBC and Ross was suspended for three months following the affair.

Despite announcing strict new taste guidelines, gaffes like these are becoming commonplace at the BBC. DJ Chris Moyles has had to apologise for making jokes about Auschwitz, suggesting that Poles make good prostitutes and making fun of singer Will Young’s sexuality. Elsewhere, comedian Harry Enfield sparked controversy in October 2008 after a skit in one of his television shows led to the Philippine ambassador to London accusing him of racism.

What do you think about these scandals? Was the BBC right to axe Carol Thatcher? How should they deal with the latest Clarkson outburst? Is this a serious issue or an overreaction by those who complain?

After a week of media frenzy, the BBC hopes it has taken action to end the crisis caused by the crude prank call made by Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand on the latter’s Radio 2 show.

Brand has quit and Jonathan Ross has been suspended after the presenters left lewd comments on the answerphone of 78-year-old “Fawlty Towers” actor Andrew Sachs. The head of Radio 2 Lesley Douglas has also resigned.

The outcome it would appear has left no one happy. Most commentators feel the BBC took far too long to act on an issue that had clearly angered the public with more than 30,000 people making a complaint.

Many newspapers feel Douglas was unjustly sacrificed, taking the rap for mistakes made by production staff she had little or nothing to do with. The Daily Mirror said she was a “big loss to weak BBC”.

What it means for the BBC is unclear. Its governing body, the BBC Trust, says lessons must be learned and editorial guidelines tightened without jeopardising creativity and “edgy” programmes.

Those like the Daily Mail, a regular critic of the broadcaster, want the corporation to go further, citing other “highly offensive” jokes, including one about the Queen, that have appeared on the BBC since the row erupted.

Others worry that fear of causing offence will make the BBC safe and irrelevant.

Did the BBC get it right? Should Ross have been sacked as an example that the BBC has lost the plot on what is acceptable or has the whole affair just been ridiculously hyped by the media?

The furore over offensive phone calls made by Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand to actor Andrew Sachs shows how society has forgotten how to behave itself, the Independent said in an editorial.

“Exactly what has happened to good manners and basic courtesy,” it asked on its leader page. “And isn’t it time they made a return?

The episode casts Britain in a “very shabby light” and raised the question: should a public service broadcaster employ such individuals, the paper added.

The incident was “ugly, cheap and nasty” and highlights a wider issue of falling standards in modern broadcasting, wrote John Harris in a column for the Guardian.

“Perhaps the spectral presence of Mary Whitehouse has hung around our discourse on broadcasting for too long,” he wrote. “Agreeing that too much TV is getting ever more coarse and idiotic doesn’t strike me as a sop to the authoritarian right.”

The Times used its august leader columns to discuss the incident under the headline “A Sorry Affair”, the same headline used by its sister paper The Sun in its “Sun Says” column.

“Some will say that humour that doesn’t offend isn’t humour,” the Times said. “Cutting humour is designed to draw blood. Lenny Bruce drew plenty. But there is a wide gulf between comedy and malice.”

The editors’ failure to delete the offending section of Brand’s pre-recorded show before it was broadcast “should mortify the BBC”, it added.

“SACK THEM!” screamed the front page headline in the Daily Mail.

“Even by the standards of this puerile, smutty pair, this was a disgusting and gratuitously cruel way to a treat 78-year-old Andrew Sachs,” the paper said in an editorial.

“Is there any reason why we should be expected to go on paying this vile man (Brand) - or the executives who judge his filth fit to broadcast?”