ISN'T it saying something about the state of public discourse when virtually all of the headlines in the national newspapers last week were about the obscene messages left on Andrew Sachs's answering machine by Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand?

But apart from the obvious, the incident also exposed a generation gap. It reminded me of how advanced in age I am getting.

Most young people I met this week had no idea who Andrew Sachs was. But they knew who left the messages on his phone.

Not only was the generation gap exposed by the fact that we had not grown up watching the same TV programmes – and young people today are that much poorer for not having seen Fawlty Towers – it was also exposed by our different reactions to the incident.

For most young people, it was just a joke, a bit too far, but just a joke.

For me, it was not simply the fact that it was nasty, or that it was broadcast on a late-night BBC radiotalk show, it was just completely inexplicable.

Why would anyone, let alone highly paid DJs at the BBC, want to harass poor "Manuel" about the sexual antics of his granddaughter?

But this is apparently what passes for humour today.

The fact that there has been a big deal made of the incident is in some way reassuring, but I cannot help but think that the big deal has been made by Fawlty Towers loyalists, and they are, sadly, a dwindling generation.

At moments like this, I must confess I do become reticent.

The world is making way for a new generation. Of new ideas, and new people, with sometimes wholly different, often opposing, standards of morality and principle.

What was bad once is good today, and what was good once is bad today.

What was new and innovative once is old and outdated today. And we somehow find the strength to live without people we thought must always be part of our lives.

I suppose that is nothing new. It has been the way of the world since time began; the world moves on. It always moves on.

The Prophet Muhammad once said: "Do not bring up your children as you have been brought up, for they will live in different times."

Those are words of wisdom indeed.

If only we truly understood them. We have to accept the simple fact that our children will not necessarily agree with us.

As a father, I often find myself saying to my children: "When I was your age, I did not do this or do that."

What I should be saying is: "When I was your age. I did this and I did that." The difference?

The first is saying what they should not do. The second is simply an example of how things can be done.

The children will do things their own way – our role as parents can surely only be to guide them on a particular course, not insist on it.

Leading by example is always the best way.

Any attempt by parents, or society, to insist on how our children and the coming generations turn out will only end in frustration. The kind of frustration only Basil Fawlty would express with Manuel.