BBC suspends Brand and Ross.

[Bozza]

However ringing up an elderly gentleman on national radio to tell him that you have "f***ed his grandaughter" is very offensive.

But Brand didn't. He rang up Sachs, who was supposed to be on his show in person, and Ross shouted it out.

So Brand did not "ring up an elderly gentleman on national radio to tell him that he had 'f***ed his granddaughter'".

Neither did Brand tell him that he had f***ed his granddaughter.

Neither did any of this happen directly on national radio, it happened 2 days before it was aired. During which time, plenty of people had plenty of opportunity to prevent the airing.

 

[Twinkle Toes]

Brand?

Ross?

Now just grow up the pair of you & stop behaving like two little boys; with little cocks: playing with tape recorder

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Brilliant. That BBC taking moral advice froma paper that supported the Nazi party.

I actually think there is nothing I hate more that the bigoted, zenophobic (sp), backwards-thinking daily mail.

[/rant]

Your description is perfectly put.

 

[bright1064]

But Brand didn't. He rang up Sachs, who was supposed to be on his show in person, and Ross shouted it out.

So Brand did not "ring up an elderly gentleman on national radio to tell him that he had 'f***ed his granddaughter'".

Neither did Brand tell him that he had f***ed his granddaughter.

Neither did any of this happen directly on national radio, it happened 2 days before it was aired. During which time, plenty of people had plenty of opportunity to prevent the airing.

Ok, fair point about Brand not directly saying it. I blame Ross for this as well, I'm not pointing a finger at any one of them more than the other. They are both as bad as each other.

But once it had been done, they followed up with a tirade of horrible series of "bad taste" jokes, that I posted a few mins ago.

The Beeb should have stopped it from going out, you're right. And the person responsible for that should be suspended as well! But Brand and Ross still left a series of horrible voicemail messages on Sachs' phone. When you look at the things that were said, you have to concede that it wasn't very fair on Andrew Sachs?

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Someone who equates watching TV with opening their eyes is not someone who's opinion i value

Hmmmmm. Written by someone who proposes not owning a TV if you object to two attention-seeking comedians making lewd comments to a person about their grand-daughter. On the radio.

 

[beorhthelm]

what i find offensive is the way the Mail and the rest of the media have latched on to this non story and elevated it to such importance that it headlined yesturdays news with 5 minutes of coverage, the PM waded into it and theres talk of a criminal investigation. what the f***? for an at worst childish running joke that might have been mildly offenisve to those involved? 99% of any embarassement has been caused by the media storm, otherwise noone who hdnt listens to the show would have any idea about it. the pious nature of the print media is incredulous as everyday they present one sided exposures of people in the public eye that are of no interest to anyone, yet have a go at this. pathetic double standards.

 

[Spider]

Absolutely pathetic decision by the BBC and just goes to highlight the sheer imbecility of some peope today.

For a start, the fact that all but 2 of the complaints about this came after the Daily Mail had got their teeth into it shows that most people didn't bat an eyelid until it was whipped into hysteria.

I don't think anyone disputes that the first call was offensive, almost entirely die to Ross shouting out what he did, but if you actually listen to the subsequent calls I'd hardly describe them as particuarly offensive, just a little bit childish. However, the calls served their purpose of being funny, I'm not sure it's humour in the best taste but the comedians were doing their jobs, although obviously they should never have got into the situation they did and perhaps continued on it for too long.

The real question is who allowed it to be broadcast? I don't really blame Ross or Brand because I did actually find it quite funny if close to the bone. The other big question is whether upsetting one elderly gentleman is worthy of national frenzy and parliament discussion. The BBC should have acted firmly when this started by issuing a public apology and publishing written apologies from Brand and Ross, instead they let it lie and have now been bullied into making a decision which is way over the top considering the offence. I can't believe the Daily Mail, considering the tabloid press's frequent campaigns of hate against various celebrities, can make such a mountain out of what is and should have been kept as a molehill. It pisses me off that the BBC have allowed themselves to be so weak willed and ruin what are two popular and entertaining shows. If Brand and Ross don't return, though my faith in humanity rests on the condition that they will, it will be a massive injustice, if this is offensive enough for the sack there probably won't be many comedians or broadcasters with character left.

ANGRY ANGRY ANGRY.

Rant over

 

[Monkey Man]

Isn't it the media's job to bring injustice, large and small, to public attention?

I hate the Daily Mail and it certainly doesn't set my agenda. A lot of people have become sick of Ross and Brand (and also Moyles and other talentless idiots) and this episode is focusing a lot of pent-up annoyance about their salaries and over-exposure.

After we've administered justice to Ross & Co, I'd like to see the Daily Mail get its come-uppance for peddling vicious scare stories and hypocritical right wing nonsense, but the only way for that to happen is for people to stop buying it.

 

[Spider]

Isn't it the media's job to bring injustice, large and small, to public attention?

I hate the Daily Mail and it certainly doesn't set my agenda. A lot of people have become sick of Ross and Brand (and also Moyles and other talentless idiots) and this episode is focusing a lot of pent-up annoyance about their salaries and over-exposure.

After we've administered justice to Ross & Co, I'd like to see the Daily Mail get its come-uppance for peddling vicious scare stories and hypocritical right wing nonsense, but the only way for that to happen is for people to stop buying it.

So waht you're saying is that it's totally reasonable for the punishment to be way over the top becuse you and some other people happen to dislike Russell Brand. I think this is the crux of the issue, all the morons who have got all high and mighty about a trivial offence are mostly people who don't like Brand.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

So waht you're saying is that it's totally reasonable for the punishment to be way over the top becuse you and some other people happen to dislike Russell Brand. I think this is the crux of the issue, all the morons who have got all high and mighty about a trivial offence are mostly people who don't like Brand.

I think you have the wrong one. I think it is Ross. Will many Mail readers have heard of Russell Brand ? Jonathon Ross however is massively overpaid for (the bits I have seen) flirting with his guests. Other than his film reviews - I think he is a pillock and resent the BBC celebrity obsession that pays him so much money from the licence fee.

You can see from all the various aspects why it has blown up beyond all proportion. Watching the girl now making the most of her 15 minutes is just adding to the mix.

 

[Spider]

I hate Ross with a passion, I think he's crass, self-obsessed and completely unfunny. I think he was much more to blame than Brand for the offensive nature of the calls, because I think Brand got carried away and was trying to be funny without maliciousness. However I don't think even Ross' offence was worthy of suspension, an apology was more than enough.

And also, I think there's very few peope who haven't heard of Russell Brand. Just because Mail readers are less likely to watch or listen to his stuff it doesn't mean they don't know who he is - he is really rather well known!

 

[Brovion]

Nobody, with the possible exception of Sachs, comes out of this well; this is 'Lickergate' writ large. And I do mean nobody, and that includes all the outraged people who complained despite not really knowing what they were complaining about. (Bourne out by some of the posts on this thread).

 

[sten_super]

Absolutely pathetic decision by the BBC and just goes to highlight the sheer imbecility of some peope today.

For a start, the fact that all but 2 of the complaints about this came after the Daily Mail had got their teeth into it shows that most people didn't bat an eyelid until it was whipped into hysteria.

I don't think anyone disputes that the first call was offensive, almost entirely die to Ross shouting out what he did, but if you actually listen to the subsequent calls I'd hardly describe them as particuarly offensive, just a little bit childish. However, the calls served their purpose of being funny, I'm not sure it's humour in the best taste but the comedians were doing their jobs, although obviously they should never have got into the situation they did and perhaps continued on it for too long.

The real question is who allowed it to be broadcast? I don't really blame Ross or Brand because I did actually find it quite funny if close to the bone. The other big question is whether upsetting one elderly gentleman is worthy of national frenzy and parliament discussion. The BBC should have acted firmly when this started by issuing a public apology and publishing written apologies from Brand and Ross, instead they let it lie and have now been bullied into making a decision which is way over the top considering the offence. I can't believe the Daily Mail, considering the tabloid press's frequent campaigns of hate against various celebrities, can make such a mountain out of what is and should have been kept as a molehill. It pisses me off that the BBC have allowed themselves to be so weak willed and ruin what are two popular and entertaining shows. If Brand and Ross don't return, though my faith in humanity rests on the condition that they will, it will be a massive injustice, if this is offensive enough for the sack there probably won't be many comedians or broadcasters with character left.

ANGRY ANGRY ANGRY.

Rant over

Best post on the thread. I agree with every word.

 

[METALMICKY]

Not very funny, childish, boorish and basically a bit pathetic. "ooh i slept with your granddaughter" etc. However, the real idiot is the BBC executive who approved the airing of the show.

The outpourings of protest are just a rather sad witch hunt. The real reasons are actually based on the fact that in a time of recession a lot of people dislike Mr Ross, his smugness and absurd salary. Here was a chance to bash him. As for Brand he's an acquired taste and again here was chance for his detractors to go on the offensive.

 

[Monkey Man]

So waht you're saying is that it's totally reasonable for the punishment to be way over the top becuse you and some other people happen to dislike Russell Brand. I think this is the crux of the issue, all the morons who have got all high and mighty about a trivial offence are mostly people who don't like Brand.

Not saying that at all. What I AM saying is that there's no point pleading the "only two listeners complained" defence and then attacking the media for bringing something pretty nasty to wider attention. As I say, that's part of the media's job.

To put it another way: you would hardly expect Russell Brand's fans (ie his listeners) to have made the complaints, would you? That doesn't mean that he and Ross didn't cross a line here.

 

[Kylies Stunt Arse]

Something else about this is bothering me.

According to this timeline BBC NEWS | Entertainment | Timeline: Russell Brand prank calls, a hack from the Daily Nazi contacted Sachs' agent on the Wednesday after the show was broadcast. 4 days after it was broadcast, 6 days after the show was recorded. That was the first that either the agent or Sachs' knew about it. Were the messages actually even left, or were Brand and Ross just f***ing about in the studio? I mean, if Sachs' was truly offended surely he would have complained to the BBC well before the Fleet Street faction of the SS contacted his agent. Wouldn't he?

 

[Bozza]

Not saying that at all. What I AM saying is that there's no point pleading the "only two listeners complained" defence and then attacking the media for bringing something pretty nasty to wider attention. As I say, that's part of the media's job.

But the 2 complaints were due to the language used - Ross's 'f word' antics, not the actual nature of the telephone calls.

 

[Bozza]

Something else about this is bothering me.

According to this timeline BBC NEWS | Entertainment | Timeline: Russell Brand prank calls, a hack from the Daily Nazi contacted Sachs' agent on the Wednesday after the show was broadcast. 4 days after it was broadcast, 6 days after the show was recorded. That was the first that either the agent or Sachs' knew about it. Were the messages actually even left, or were Brand and Ross just f***ing about in the studio? I mean, if Sachs' was truly offended surely he would have complained to the BBC well before the Fleet Street faction of the SS contacted his agent. Wouldn't he?

I'd thought about this myself. My assumption was that Sachs did get the messages but did not realise they'd also been broadcast, believing them to either to be...

a) Some prank calling
b) Taking place outside of the radio show.
c) Taking place within the recording of the show, but subsequently edited out

 

[sten_super]

Not saying that at all. What I AM saying is that there's no point pleading the "only two listeners complained" defence and then attacking the media for bringing something pretty nasty to wider attention. As I say, that's part of the media's job.

To put it another way: you would hardly expect Russell Brand's fans (ie his listeners) to have made the complaints, would you? That doesn't mean that he and Ross didn't cross a line here.

The media's job is to report news. "Man left rude messages by two comedians" is not news, is it? This was a complete non-issue, that was made into an issue by a newspaper. The fact that nothing more high-brow (or, for that matter, low-brow) than the MoS picked it up is pretty telling.

Maybe it's me not understanding. I simply can't get round the mindset which thinks 'I didn't hear the show, I'm not involved in the show in any way, but I'm taking offence on this man's behalf'.

 

[Brovion]

Maybe it's me not understanding. I simply can't get round the mindset which thinks 'I didn't hear the show, I'm not involved in the show in any way, but I'm taking offence on this man's behalf'.

That is an extremely good summing up of not just this situation but the whole "I'm offended on behalf of ..." mindset that exists. Another example would be the white people who objected to kids blacking up as Victorian chimney sweeps because it 'offended' black people, or the white non-Muslim, non-Hindu people who object to Christmas because it 'offends' people from non-Christian cultures.

Interestingly the Daily Mail would dismiss those types of 'offence by proxy' as 'political correctness gone mad' ...