BBC suspends Brand and Ross.

[Mr Blunt]

The Mail on Sunday, and then the Mail started it off, but the other papers wouldn't have picked it up if it wasn't a story.

You've also had the likes of George Galloway on talkSPORT actually putting out all the complaint numbers on his show which is arguably even more of a vested interest at work - another radio station doing its best to make life awkward for the BBC.

Yeah it isnt just the Mail on sunday that have gone with this story

 

[Rusthall Seagull]

Ron Atkinson made his comment while they were off-air in the UK, but still live in parts of the Middle East. From wikipedia...

Ron Atkinson's media work came to an abrupt end on April 21, 2004, when he resigned from ITV after he broadcast a racist remark live on air about the black Chelsea F.C. player Marcel Desailly: believing the microphone to be switched off, he said, "...he [Desailly] is what is known in some schools as a f***ing lazy thick ******". Although transmission in the UK had finished, the microphone gaffe meant that his comment was broadcast to various countries in the Middle East. He also left his job as a columnist for The Guardian "by mutual agreement" as a result of the comment.

Do you believe that there aren't racists, or any other kind of 'undesirable' that you care to mention, in high profile media jobs? The difference is keeping these comments out of the public domain. That should, in this case, have fallen to Brand's editorial team. They failed to do their job.


On another note, I saw Mark Thompson's statement on the incident. What balls.

"It is clear from the views expressed by the public that this broadcast has caused severe offence and I share that view."

No Mark, the broadcast caused very little offence (2 complaints). It is the Daily Mail front-page article on Sunday which caused severe offence (17998 complaints).

yes, that is the editorial teams job, however, if they fail then surely all parties are responsible for their actions? ? ?

 

[Kylies Stunt Arse]

Well, I'm sorry for having a different view and being an idiot, obviously, and we clearly have very different opinions about what constitutes good radio.

You appear to be of the school that believes you can say whatever you like, offend everyone, and well, it's only a laugh, innit, and if they're not happy, well sod 'em, they should have a thicker skin. Thank God you're not in charge.

I can't speak for everyone, but having listened to the thing I didn't there was any choice but for a very heavy sanction. Not sure how that is faux outrage, it's genuinely what I thought, and what I think.

Hang on. I certainly wasn't calling you an idiot, and at no point have I said that they can say what they like etc.

I took issue with you saying that the comments clearly upset Sachs, as I haven't seen that reported anywhere.

I also take issue with the way that it has escalated to a ridiculous level, seemingly off the back of sensationalist reporting in the Mail, a scumbag paper if ever there was one. 2, yes 2, people complained after the show was broadcast, and about the swearing rather than the calls themselves. 18000 people have complained since. Does that not smack in the tiniest bit of faux outrage or bandwagon jumping? Again, this is not an accusation I'm levelling at you. Did you complain? Did it affect you or offend you so much that you considered it? It strikes me that some people simply don't like the protagonists and saw it as an opportunity to get stuck in.

One ofthe more bizarre aspects is that someone at the BBC called Sachs before broadcast - and at the end of the conversation Sachs understood the phone messages were not to be broadcast. But they went ahead anyway.

Then surely the producers should also take a major part of the burden of blame here. While it certainly doesn't mean that Brand and Ross should get away without some form of reprimand for going too far it should NEVER have got to this stage because it should NEVER have been broadcast in the first place.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Then surely the producers should also take a major part of the burden of blame here. While it certainly doesn't mean that Brand and Ross should get away without some form of reprimand for going too far it should NEVER have got to this stage because it should NEVER have been broadcast in the first place.

That is true. And then there should have been some form of internal inquiry and reprimand. But it was broadcast - so the BBC have to act. Presumably heads will roll internally - so they have to take some action against Ross and Brand.

And of course it presents an opportunity to have a go at Ross and Brand. Personally - I find Brand very funny and Ross a complete (not quite complete as I like his film reviews) tool.

 

[sten_super]

Yeah it isnt just the Mail on sunday that have gone with this story

It was, however, the Mail on Sunday that initially investigated and ran this story. It seems that everyone else had missed it; so in all likelihood if the Mail had not printed the story, it wouldn't have gone any further. Bear in mind that this is already a week after the event, so it's off the iPlayer and any daily that was going to pick it up had already missed the boat!

yes, that is the editorial teams job, however, if they fail then surely all parties are responsible for their actions? ? ?

No, I disagree entirely with this. At my work, if I write a report, it is then read and signed off by a director of the company. He is effectively taking responsibility for the report. If the shit hits the fan then, he will have to take the fall. What is the point of the process if there is not accountability?


I probably haven't portrayed myself very clearly; the Daily Mail did this because it would sell newspapers. What is most disapointing about the whole thing is probably that fact. Writing a front-page article about something that happened a week ago on Radio 2 got the masses positively frothing at the mouth with outrage. Is there a more damning indictment of the stupidity and pathetic nature of middle England?

I don't know why we don't just bring back burning witches at the stake.

 

[Tooting Gull]

On a lighter note, it appears that Russell Brand may be a closet NSC-er. It says in the Sun today he "refused to answer questions as he FLOUNCED out of his home in Hampstead, pausing only to tell reporters he was 'deleting cookies now'".

 

[SI 4 BHA]

For those who have not heard it!

YouTube - Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross Abuse Andrew Sachs via Phone 1

Thanks for the link but what a pathetic load of drivel. Managed to listen to the first 5 minutes then I must have nodded off! If some of you think that is funny or clever, we might as well all give up now. I'd rather waste my time watching Palarse than listen to that crap. The 2 tossers involved should be dropped by the Beeb because THEY ARE NOT FUNNY, not because of any offence caused by the broadcast.

 

[pasty]

The 2 tossers involved should be dropped by the Beeb because THEY ARE NOT FUNNY, not because of any offence caused by the broadcast.

 

[Huple]

Gordon Brand has not won a tournement for years.

No loss.

 

[eastlondonseagull]

Wha\t about the people that let the prerecorded show go on air ?

Yes, they're the ones that should get the chop, because they allowed the piece to be aired.

In reality, however, it's a huge storm brewed up by the Sun newspaper, and it's fabulous PR for the Satanic Slut herself. She's being represented by Max Clifford, don't forget.

When the programme originally aired, the BBC received TWO complaints. Since the Sun jumped on board and gleefully splashed acres of space on it, the complaints tally has risen to 18,000! FFS, 17,500 of those probably didn't hear the broadcast. :

.

 

[Wozza]

Anyone know why day the Mail 'broke' the story? (I know it was about a WEEK after broadcast).

I ask because Brand was goading the Mail (specifically) on the following week's show.

 

[Mtoto]

Was out of the country until last Monday so arrived at this a bit late, but if anything has made my mind up - and persuaded me to have at least a little sympathy for Ross - it's the piece by Piers Morgan in today's Mail calling for him to be sacked for gross misconduct.

This, remember, is a man who somehow managed to hold onto his job as editor of the Mirror despite making tens of thousands of pounds buying shares that he knew the City Slickers column on his paper was about to tip up, then selling for a profit shortly afterwards.

He should have done 2-3 years in jail for insider trading. His minions took the rap instead. Stinking, nauseating, filthy hypocrisy - thy name is Piers Morgan.

 

[theonesmith]

I really hope they bring his shows back, his sharp wit is often overlooked by the more sexual side of his comedy and its a shame that this has been blown out of proportion. Even the available transcripts have been biased as a lot of build up was missed out.

I understand that some people don't like him and some people do. I understand that people don't like their license fee's supporting him. However his show is for 2 hours on a saturday night, and your license fee's go towards a variety of media.

I really do feel sorry for them as a lot has been made out of it, but to be fair the producers shouldn't have let it run, even if it wasn't going to offend Sachs, as the papers thrive on stuff like this.

 

[sten_super]

Anyone know why day the Mail 'broke' the story? (I know it was about a WEEK after broadcast).

I ask because Brand was goading the Mail (specifically) on the following week's show.

It was the Mail on Sunday that broke the story. The granddaughter knew on the preceeding Wednesday, while Sachs requested a formal apology on the Thursday, so it's probable that the BBC (and Brand) knew it was the Mail running with the story around that time.

And yes, Piers Morgan is a horrible, hypocritical little shit.

 

[Wozza]

but to be fair the producers shouldn't have let it run, even if it wasn't going to offend Sachs, as the papers thrive on stuff like this.

Insiders are suggesting that Sachs knew it was going to broadcast.

 

[Wozza]

It was the Mail on Sunday that broke the story.

That's what I thought. So it took them a full week to get enraged. Lame.

Just seen this timeline... BBC NEWS | Entertainment | Timeline: Russell Brand prank calls

 

[maffew]

f***ing good. I dont want my license fee paying someone x million per year to phone up and goad someones grandad that they've shagged their granddaughter and then joke they are gonna go round break in and wank him off. Wossy and Brand should go (IMO) they have overstepped the mark there

 

[Kukev31]

What a massive over reaction this has been, why on earth did Gordon Brown feel the need to mention it, and I can't believe 18 thousand people were offended enough to actually complain.

 

[Tooting Gull]

That's what I thought. So it took them a full week to get enraged. Lame.

To be fair, they were probably trying to get hold of everyone involved and do it properly. I bet they couldn't believe their luck none of the dailies got involved and it held for over a week.

 

[Monkey Man]

On another note, I saw Mark Thompson's statement on the incident. What balls.

"It is clear from the views expressed by the public that this broadcast has caused severe offence and I share that view."

No Mark, the broadcast caused very little offence (2 complaints). It is the Daily Mail front-page article on Sunday which caused severe offence (17998 complaints).

That's flawed logic. Are you suggesting that you can use the medium of a national broadcast to do basically anything as long as those lucky/unlucky to hear it don't complain? The reason there were so few complaints is that the people who listen to Brand's show know what to expect. The same can't be said of Andrew Sachs.

Brand and Ross have developed an arrogance and self-obsession which detracts from whatever talents they have. I used to like Ross - I stopped watching and listening years ago because the low-grade smut was becoming so tedious and repetitive. That's basically his act now. As for Brand - great in the Guardian but how am I supposed to relate to a stand-up act based around how the tabloids report his sex life?