# Comedians



## Rich (28 Oct 2008)

I can't understand how Jonathan Ross or Russel Brand are described as comedians, they have NEVER made me laugh in the same vain as, say, the two Ronnies or Tommy Cooper, I find their "humour" to be both cynical and sarcastic, is it just me? or do others actually find them funny, for the amount they are paid I would expect to have aching sides from listening to a comedian.

Rich.

Sorry mods, I posted in the wrong section.  , perhaps you would be kind enough to move it for me.

tia, Rich.


----------



## Paul.J (28 Oct 2008)

I agrre Rich.
I used to like Wossy,but he as been getting on me nerves now for some time,and this last joke :roll: as just gone over the top me thinks.


----------



## Paul Chapman (28 Oct 2008)

That Russell Brand is awful - if he's ever on the radio I turn it off. If you listen to him talking about the incident on the BBC News website, he clearly doesn't know that, when you're in a hole, it's best to stop digging.

The sooner they fire him the better.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## motownmartin (28 Oct 2008)

Russell Brand has always been below the belt and it was only a matter of time before he went too far


----------



## neilyweely (28 Oct 2008)

I do laugh at some of the jokes, and TBH the hoohah over the comments is going OTT a bit - there is other stuff going on that is far more significant that gets less coverage.

I think our sense of humour changes as we get older, I used to laugh at The Young Ones, but now it just seems banal, which is kinda what Brand is. Ross has at least got a degree of wit, Brand is just a famous hedonist.


Hate to say it Wizer, but I think we are getting old!!

Neil
Ps - on the subject of humour, I have just discovered Frasier. And it is great! Try it, I think you will like it.


----------



## BradNaylor (28 Oct 2008)

Ross has never really been billed as a comedian, but at one time he was very funny. Unfortunately he has completely lost it of late.

Brand is apparantly a comedian, but really he's just total rubbish.

If I was the BBC, I would take advantage of their indiscretions and terminate their contracts forthwith, saving a fortune in the process.

Needless to say though, it won't happen.

Dan


----------



## mailee (28 Oct 2008)

I couldn't agree more although I have never heard of the Brand character. I may be getting old but I am glad if this is the sort of thing that passes for humour nowadays! Another good example are the idiots who host radio 1 now, the likes of that Chris Moyles who is another one who should be fired IMHO. How can sarcasm be funny as this is all that seems to pass as funny to these people now. And I thought my humour was sick??


----------



## woodbloke (28 Oct 2008)

Both of these characters have come very close to the knuckle on severial occasions...this time they appear to have crossed it huge time (I haven't heard the offending piece) As Dan says. it'll probably be a slap on the wrist for each rather than the boot which is what's required by all accounts. I have to say that I find Ross's show on the wireless on Sat morning marginally better than the one on the box, but I did enjoy the TV show with Tom Hanks where the obnoxious interviewer got cut right down to size  - Rob


----------



## OPJ (28 Oct 2008)

I don't 'get' what other people see in Russel Brand and I never have done. As for Wossy, the sooner he realises that people tune in to BBC1 on a Friday night to watch the guests (and not him!), the better. Sorry, the guy just irritates me (he has writers to do all his "gags" for him, apparently, so, I really don't see how the Beeb can justify calling him a comedian). :roll: 

Chris Moyles is one of the reasons I avoid the radio altogether (then, of course, there's the musci... :wink.

Lee Evans is my favourite comedian at the moment. Great stand up, although I didn't think much of his TV shows a few years back. :?


----------



## Rich (28 Oct 2008)

Bring on Jethro, now he DOES make me laugh, but seriously and without wishing to be a killjoy, these two supposed comedians are paid fantastic amounts of taxpayers money, I for one do not think they are good value
and would rather see the money spent on something like Autumn watch, or God willing, woodworking programmes.    

Rich.


----------



## Big Fat Pig (28 Oct 2008)

Like others here, i used to find Ross amusing, but for a long time now he has become an annoying twit who is so far up himself he needs a miners lamp. His repertoire ,if you can call it such, is made up of smutty adolescent comments and innuendo, which seems all the more galling when you consider what we as licence payers are having to cough up to pay him. Personally i wouldnt pay him in washers and i pray that he and Brand are both sent down for a spell for comitting a criminal offence, namely the making of an obscene phone call. Unfortunately, as has already been mentioned, he will probably get away with it. The depth to which he has sunk puts him firmly beneath contempt.






Off the soap box and back to the workshop.






Piggy


----------



## Argee (29 Oct 2008)

Another example of so-called "pushing the envelope" - AKA mindless drivel - which on this occasion was also personally insulting. Unfortunately, BBC standards allowed it to go out, so the rot really has set into the Corporation. I suspect that an executive "OK" on the broadcast also means that the "performers" are bomb-proof.



neilyweely":1ksy196u said:


> Ps - on the subject of humour, I have just discovered Frasier. And it is great! Try it, I think you will like it.


Different league altogether - brilliantly written, clean, clever, plus farce at its very best. The five-minute silent part of the "Valentine for Niles" is as good as anything I've seen.

Incidentally, I've just discovered Steve Delaney's "Count Arthur Strong" and I'm now a fan. 

Ray


----------



## woodbloke (29 Oct 2008)

Just had a look at the BBC news site and the complaints are now 18000+. I expect an announcement will be made shortly from the Head Honcho on the pair's future - Rob


----------



## wizer (29 Oct 2008)

oops, looks like it was just me who saw the humour in it.  I'm not fan of either of them, I sometimes like Brand's take on comedy. Maybe they did take it too far. But where is the line? Some of the things that are shown on the new series of Little Britain are plain wrong on many levels, yet they are branded comedy heroes. I think Brand and Ross where just unlucky, if the media hadn't picked it up, I honestly don't think there would have been as many complaints.

There was a sketch in the Metro today of Brand and Ross in the Listings Manager's office, receiving champagne, how close to the truth that really is.... DAMHIKT


----------



## ByronBlack (29 Oct 2008)

I think it's clearly a generation thing, the older generations will prefer morcombe and wise, the two ronnies etc.. whereas the younger generation rather obviously will like Brand, Ross, etc..

I happen to prefer the newer generation of entertainers/comedians than the old ones, it's not to say that either are better than the other, it's just down to references, thats all comedy is about really, observations and references, and depending on your age, you'll be able to relate more or less to various comedians.

As for Autumn Watch and the likes, there is plenty of that on the BBC to cater for that audience, just because you might not like a type of program doesn't mean it's inferior and should be taken of the TV, after-all, the BBC is trying (and sometimes failing) to cater for all ages and preferences.

I personally, would die of boredom if I have to watch any more Spring/Autumn watch, however, the big cats program was entertaining.


----------



## wizer (29 Oct 2008)

I'd be interested in Autumn/Spring Watch if it was just Kate Humble presenting and Bill Oddie was retired


----------



## Vormulac (29 Oct 2008)

3 complaints about an advert and it is instantly pulled, 18000 complaints about this and you can bet they will barely receive a rap on the knuckles.

I hadn't heard about this before today, but I definitely agree with sacking them both - not necessarily for this prank, they're both just cr*p. Russell Brand boasting *yet again* about who he's slept with? Last time it was Rod Stewart's daughter and he almost got his head kicked in by said pint sized popster, this time he's erring on the side of caution by picking on a 78 year old, nice one Brand - God you're so cool. Mind you, rotten eggs for the granddaughter in question, talk about displaying the most appallingly bad judgement to actually get into that position in the first place. Jeez.
Wossy is 20 years past his best before date, The Incredibly Strange Picture Show was brilliant, everything else since... not so much.

Just my opinion, natch.


----------



## Paul Chapman (29 Oct 2008)

ByronBlack":1pjez46f said:


> I think it's clearly a generation thing



No it's not. Publicly humiliating people and broadcasting it as they did is totally unacceptable. You don't need to be of an older generation to see that.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## ByronBlack (29 Oct 2008)

Paul Chapman":16jweowk said:


> ByronBlack":16jweowk said:
> 
> 
> > I think it's clearly a generation thing
> ...



Paul, your misunderstanding me, I was referrig to the preference of comedians and wasn't passing a comment on that particular circumstance. Because, I agree, that both should be sacked for what they did, it was pathetic and cruel.

Kenny Everet was sacked for much less I believe.

I was talking about them as a generation of 'comedian' and their ilk, not nessacarily this current action.


----------



## motownmartin (29 Oct 2008)

Paul Chapman":v5j05rwo said:


> ByronBlack":v5j05rwo said:
> 
> 
> > I think it's clearly a generation thing
> ...


Perhaps its the way of the younger generation :shock: attitudes are changing


----------



## ByronBlack (29 Oct 2008)

motownmartin":8v80tfpw said:


> Paul Chapman":8v80tfpw said:
> 
> 
> > ByronBlack":8v80tfpw said:
> ...



Martin - please refer to my reply above. I wasn't saying that this *situation* was a generation thing, rather the preference to these types of comedian is, again, I'm not condoning their involvement in that stunt.


----------



## motownmartin (29 Oct 2008)

BB i'm not having a go at you, just my opinion is that peoples attidudes are changing especially the younger generation and they don't find this sort of humour offensive, in fact I don't find it offensive just crude and childish.


----------



## Paul Chapman (29 Oct 2008)

The issue is that by broadcasing this stuff on national television and radio, there is an assumption that attitutes have changed and publicly humiliating people is now acceptable. Publicly humiliating people never has been acceptable and never will be.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## ByronBlack (29 Oct 2008)

motownmartin":25hpi0jm said:


> BB i'm not having a go at you, just my opinion is that peoples attidudes are changing especially the younger generation and they don't find this sort of humour offensive, in fact I don't find it offensive just crude and childish.



i know you weren't martin, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't being misread as I really feel what they did was poor taste.

I would disagree with your last point though, it's unfair on the younger generation to assume they don't have a problem with this, granted, some young people who are impressionable or havn't developed much of an awareness of society will not doubt find it hilarious, but if you speak to young people on a regular basis, as I have done over the last 6 months due to a bunch of new young people here at work, you'll be amazed that their attitudes are very similar to ours, it's only IMO a very small percentage that give the younger generation a bad image, which I have to say is somewhat projected by the likes of the Daily Mail etc..

Every week that I work with these youngsters (15, 16 and 17 year olds) I'm surprised at their mature and respectful outlook and attitudes.


----------



## motownmartin (29 Oct 2008)

Paul Chapman":c0tz8e8a said:


> Publicly humiliating people never has been acceptable and never will be.
> 
> Cheers :wink:
> 
> Paul


totally agree


----------



## StevieB (29 Oct 2008)

Well, both have just been suspended by the BBC, and that is probably the end of it. Whoever the exec was that OK'ed the broadcast (it was prerecorded, not live) will eventually take the blame and be sacked, the perpetrators will be back on air (heck, although suspended they are still recording this weeks Friday night show with JR) and nothing much will change except a spike in the JR show's ratings when people tune in to see what he has to say about the entire juvenile episode. If he wasn't being paid by the compulsory BBC licence fee I wouldn't care, the fact I have to contribute to his salary is what I find the most annoying.

Steve.


----------



## woodbloke (29 Oct 2008)

From the BBC web site:

"BBC director general Mark Thompson has suspended presenters Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand following the row over their prank phone calls to Fawlty Towers actor Andrew Sachs on Radio 2. 

The move was announced in this statement: 


I would like to add my own personal and unreserved apology to Andrew Sachs, his family and to licence fee payers for the completely unacceptable broadcast on BBC Radio 2. 

BBC audiences accept that, in comedy, performers attempt to push the line of taste. However, this is not a marginal case. 

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

Since Sunday, I have been in regular contact with the senior executives I tasked with handling this issue. 

The investigation that I instructed Tim Davie [director of BBC audio and music] to conduct is nearing completion, and I am returning to London to review the findings and, in the coming days, announce what action we will take. 

In the meantime, I have decided that it is not appropriate for either Russell Brand or Jonathan Ross to continue broadcasting on the BBC until I have seen the full report of the actions of all concerned. 

This gross lapse of taste by the performers and the production team has angered licence payers. 

I am determined that we satisfy them that any lessons will be learnt and appropriate action taken. 

I have been asked to report to the Trust's Editorial Standards Committee before the end of this week and will discuss with the Trust the findings of the report and the actions I propose." - Rob


----------



## motownmartin (29 Oct 2008)

ByronBlack":1vyjrv8b said:


> motownmartin":1vyjrv8b said:
> 
> 
> > BB i'm not having a go at you, just my opinion is that peoples attidudes are changing especially the younger generation and they don't find this sort of humour offensive, in fact I don't find it offensive just crude and childish.
> ...



My offspring are 25 and 21, they are well behaved and good mannered young people. I was pointing that the (below the belt) type of humour seems to be accepted more by the younger generation. what happens around you in your younger years has a bearing on what you will grow up like, for example if you lived in a church going community you would be very likely to go to church yourself.
Or am I just talking dribble now, probably, but my whole family are like that :lol:


----------



## newt (29 Oct 2008)

I used to watch Ross on Friday nights, until it became compulsory for him to utter the F word. Its not the F word that gets me its the fact that it has to be included, almost as if the show is not complete until he has said it. As for the latest, pathetic couple of prats that will probably get a pay rise.


----------



## ByronBlack (29 Oct 2008)

motownmartin":1bs1h922 said:


> ByronBlack":1bs1h922 said:
> 
> 
> > motownmartin":1bs1h922 said:
> ...



You make a valid point, t however, there are always exceptions, but I do feel that this humour will always appeal to the younger generation just because it's part of growing up; rebelling, the sense of being edgy etc.. I'm sure we were all like that when we were younger, it just happens that back in our childhoods, what was considered edgy and conteversial seems tame compared today, It's all got to be looked at in perspective I feel.


----------



## motownmartin (29 Oct 2008)

OK BB, i'll agree with your last statement.


----------



## woodbloke (29 Oct 2008)

I see Brand has now gone ( :-k did he go or was he pushed?)...how long for Wossy? - Rob


----------



## Rich (29 Oct 2008)

I get the impression that Brand is the sacrificial goat here and that the BBC will hope that this "sop" will draw a line under the situation, I would imagine that Brand was given a VERY nice handshake to go in order to protect Ross and the editor of the broadcast, I don't think we have seen the end of this farcical situation yet, it would'nt happen in the private sector, heads would have rolled, but, as usual in a publicly financed institution, anything goes and sod the taxpayer.

Rich.


----------



## Cowboy _Builder (29 Oct 2008)

Kenny Everett was sacked for just cracking a funny joke i wonder if any of you can remember the gag ?.... he was a very clever and ground breaking comedian ,unlike this pair of twits...Russell Brand should take a look at his sister Jo she laughs at herself and if he took the same line he'd have endless material to work with , as for "Wossie" i think his Saturday morning show is entertaining but his tv work is poor and the format is very tired now ,.....neither of them can justify their fees......

And...."4 Puffs and a Piano" ..whats all that about ???


----------



## Jenx (29 Oct 2008)

There's nothing the British press likes better than to 'go for the jugular' whenever the opportunity arises. 

I agree that the two characters over-stepped the line in this instance - but also, bear in mind that at least one pair of 'senior eyes' at the BBC are supposed to have 'vetted' the pre-recorded broadcast before it aired.
So far, I've not personally seen anyone baying for the head(s) of those who allowed it to get through the net.
Those 'eyes' are equally, if not more responsible for any errors of judgement.

The 'young lady' in question performs in a 'show-group' called the "Satanic Sluts", and is not exactly the archetypal 'ministers daughter'... and for her to be 'shouting the odds' does slightly smack of 'maximising an opportunity' to a certain degree.
Having said that - making the offending calls to Grandfather Andrew Sachs was somewhat 'inappropriate'.

Strange that, for the few hours during and immediately following the airing of the Broadcast, the number of complaints to the Beeb was TWO, yes TWO. - in excess of 24 hours later, it had reached 1500 - which in the grand scheme of things isn't exactly earth-shattering, 
and now, some several days later its 18000 ?
I'm not sure I'm totally swallowing that ! Were people _so offended_
that its taken them several days to recover sufficiently to get round to complaining ? hmmmmm.

The cynic in me does make me wonder, in light of Wossy having a new book out... would it be beyond possibility that a bit of publicity, this close to Christmas be particularly damaging to the sales of this book ? ... again.. hmmmmm 

And be in no doubt, whatever happens to either Brand or Ross... give it a short while and they will be back in the limelight, back earning megabucks and back as popular as ever with their fan-base... if you are in any doubt about this, I'll leave you with two words... JULIAN CLEARY.


----------



## motownmartin (29 Oct 2008)

Cowboy _Builder":apudgojf said:


> Kenny Everett was sacked for just cracking a funny joke i wonder if any of you can remember the gag ?.... he was a very clever and ground breaking comedian ,unlike this pair of twits...Russell Brand should take a look at his sister Jo she laughs at herself and if he took the same line he'd have endless material to work with , as for "Wossie" i think his Saturday morning show is entertaining but his tv work is poor and the format is very tired now ,.....neither of them can justify their fees......
> 
> And...."4 Puffs and a Piano" ..whats all that about ???


I remember Kenny Everett being sacked from BBC Radio 1 in 1970 (I think) I was only 12, for making a joke about the transport ministers wife slipping the driving examiner a Fiver to pass her test.

and in the 80s was sacked again by BBC Radio 2 for making a wisecrack about the Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, I can't remember what the joke was though.


----------



## motownmartin (29 Oct 2008)

I remember now but dare not repeat it.
To jog you memories the words Kingdom, Empire and Country were included in some rhyming slang.


----------



## RogerS (30 Oct 2008)

woodbloke":1kbni67n said:


> Just had a look at the BBC news site and the complaints are now 18000+. I expect an announcement will be made shortly from the Head Honcho on the pair's future - Rob



I just wonder how many of the 18000+ actually heard the broadcast as opposed to being yet another 'Little Englander' and jumping on the bandwagon.

Signed 'Enraged of the Shires'

EDIT: 7.25am Now 27,000. Ah...there's nothing like a bandwagon


----------



## Argee (30 Oct 2008)

Cowboy _Builder":2bq8ph6v said:


> Russell Brand should take a look at his sister Jo


For the sake of accuracy, they're *not *related in any way.

Ray.


----------



## wizer (30 Oct 2008)

This whole episode reminds me very much of being in the playground.

I'll be watching Channel 4 tonight



> 22:35 Russell Brand's Ponderland
> [subtitles]
> Pets
> Russell delves into the world of pets and uncovers a human obsession fraught with confusion.


----------



## filsgreen (30 Oct 2008)

RogerS":kxed4pmp said:


> woodbloke":kxed4pmp said:
> 
> 
> > Just had a look at the BBC news site and the complaints are now 18000+. I expect an announcement will be made shortly from the Head Honcho on the pair's future - Rob
> ...



Do you have to hear the broadcast to be offended by its content? What if it were your son or daughter they were publicly lambasting, would you like it? It's immaterial what Andrew Sachs Granddaughter does for a living, she does not deserve such shoddy treatment. I do not pay the very small license fee for two overpaid presenters to verbally attack innocent people.

Edited at 10:08.


----------



## Green (30 Oct 2008)

filsgreen":28t8zy08 said:


> Do you have to hear the broadcast to be offended by its content? By that definition I wasn't at Belsen or Auschwitz so I can't possibly be offended by that holocaust. I suppose all the people were jumping on that particular bandwagon!



Are you being serious?


----------



## filsgreen (30 Oct 2008)

I apologise for using the Holocaust as an example to highlight my point, this event should not be used to get my point across. However, I was so incensed that people cannot have an opinion just because they did not hear the broadcast. I personally do not listen to either of these presenters so I was not privy to what was broadcast first hand, but once aware of it, I sent an e-mail to the BBC. Once again I am sorry if I offended anyone


----------



## Jake (30 Oct 2008)

I think it was in really poor taste, and a nasty lapse of judgment. But the whole public fuss has now gone right over the top.


----------



## StevieB (30 Oct 2008)

If you want to listen to the actual call, its here amongst other places:

http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2008/russell-brand-jonathan-ross-prank-call-p1.php

Not sure whether this is a full version or the edited version that went out on the air (apparently not all the call was broadcast). For anyone not following this story that closely, there is some swearing and references to adult themes in the recording :wink: 

Steve.


----------



## RogerS (30 Oct 2008)

filsgreen":znm9a2ms said:


> I apologise for using the Holocaust as an example to highlight my point, this event should not be used to get my point across. However, I was so incensed that people cannot have an opinion just because they did not hear the broadcast. I personally do not listen to either of these presenters so I was not privy to what was broadcast first hand, but once aware of it, I sent an e-mail to the BBC. Once again I am sorry if I offended anyone



If one didn't hear the broadcast or read any transcript then what exactly can one complain about? On the basis of third hand information and mob hysteria generated by the tabloids? No one is denying that people shouldn't have an opinion but I think that it should be based on reasoned judgement and the available facts...not the torrid never-ending stream fuelled in part, I believe, by people objecting to Ross being paid his high salary.


----------



## big soft moose (30 Oct 2008)

motownmartin":31cc93gx said:


> I remember now but dare not repeat it.
> To jog you memories the words Kingdom, Empire and Country were included in some rhyming slang.



was that

when we were a kingdom we had a king
when we were an empire we had an emperor
and now that we are a country we have a ..... (yep i think i'll stop there)

not exactly a sacking offence..

on the brand/woss thing - yes it was in poor taste , yes they should both be sacked - but why is this front page news ??? a look through the paper shows many stories more important and more worthy of front page billing than two non entities making a prank phone call.

Brand clearly doesnt learn - it is only a few months since he got in the neck for making a prank 999 call during his stage show.


----------



## RogerS (30 Oct 2008)

big soft moose":3jdlc1n6 said:


> .......
> on the brand/woss thing - yes it was in poor taste , yes they should both be sacked - but why is this front page news ??? a look through the paper shows many stories more important and more worthy of front page billing than two non entities making a prank phone call.
> 
> .........



If Wossie does get the sack (Brand has already resigned) it shouldn't stop there as clearly there seems to be elements of poor editorial judgement within the BBC. 

This is something that isn't clear to me. In one report that I read, the BBC claim that they played the programme down the telephone line to Sachs but that the line was bad and that he didn't hear it clearly. But they then took his silence to mean assent. But if he didn't hear it clearly then surely the sensible thing for him to have done was follow it up? It's not as if he's unfamiliar with broadcasting and its' mores. Or perhaps he made the assumption that they weren't going to air it?

As for the suggestion that it should be discussed in the House of Commons? Someone needs to get their priorities in order.


----------



## Paul Chapman (30 Oct 2008)

RogerS":3tjxh8su said:


> This is something that isn't clear to me. In one report that I read, the BBC claim that they played the programme down the telephone line to Sachs but that the line was bad and that he didn't hear it clearly. But they then took his silence to mean assent.



In the interview with Andrew Sachs, he said that he heard the gist of what they were proposing to broadcast. He said that he told the producer that he didn't want them to broadcast it. They then agreed that he should appear on the show the following week and they would scrap the already recorded material. It was left with the producer who said he would "see what he could do". He then went ahead and broadcasted the material.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## RogerS (30 Oct 2008)

Paul Chapman":ulhbloe2 said:


> RogerS":ulhbloe2 said:
> 
> 
> > This is something that isn't clear to me. In one report that I read, the BBC claim that they played the programme down the telephone line to Sachs but that the line was bad and that he didn't hear it clearly. But they then took his silence to mean assent.
> ...



Thanks Paul for the clarification.

_ It was left with the producer who said he would "see what he could do". _ I reckon that that is where the focus should be but then no-one would buy the tabloids.


----------



## wizer (30 Oct 2008)

I think Sachs is more embarrassed about the attention this has created than the actual content of the answerphone message. It's the burlesque granddaughter who is up in arms (and the rest of the country, and their dogs). :roll:


----------



## Rich (30 Oct 2008)

My OP didn't even mention the misdemeanour of Ross/Brand, but as they were in the news it brought to mind why they are termed comedians? that was the gist of my question and I stand by my opinion, in fact it would seem the heirarchy of the BBC are more suited to be termed comedians, :lol: I don't need a bandwagon to air my views and I have not seen or heard the telephone conversation to Mr Sachs :lol: 

Regards,

Rich.


----------



## wizer (30 Oct 2008)

RogerS":3oln15f7 said:


> _ It was left with the producer who said he would "see what he could do". _ I reckon that that is where the focus should be but then no-one would buy the tabloids.



The controller of radio 2 resigned this morning. 

Ross has been suspended for 12 weeks without pay.


----------



## Digit (30 Oct 2008)

I've always thought the best thing about Wossie was his missus! :lol: 

Roy.


----------



## Losos (30 Oct 2008)

Big Fat Pig":djovms1o said:


> i pray that he and Brand are both sent down for a spell for comitting a criminal offence, namely *the making of an obscene phone call*.



No one has denied that it was 'obscene' and thus *they should have been prosecuted*, but like you say it was never going to get past the CPS.

Anyway Ross has a *12 week unpaid suspension*, Brand has *gone* and Lesley whatshername has *resigned*, plus there is still the OFCOM inquiry which may fine the BBC 

It is obvious, that when you earn the kind of salary Ross gets that responsibility and observance of the law are *mandatory* for any worker. He is a worker who'se supposed to entertain, *why should he be any different. *
Why have the BBC producer and his boss (The ones who signed it off) not been named and shamed :?:


----------



## Steve Maskery (30 Oct 2008)

It seems to me that Brand has done the honourable thing in the circumstances.

So has the Controller of R2

It's a pity that Ross hasn't yet seen fit to do the same. He is a wealthy man (at least, he should be given his salary). 

He is also very talented. Not to my taste perhaps (and Brand certainly isn't) but I recognize that, by the current definition of entertainment, he is talented.

So he should resign, he can still live a very comfortable life without losing his home, for a few weeks or months or even a year, and know that his particular skills will still be in demand in the broadcasting industry despite this appalling episode.

Angus Deaton has done the same (OK he was pushed rather than jumped IIRC, but the principle applies).

In that way justice is seen to have been done without anyone actually being made destitute.
S


----------



## Losos (30 Oct 2008)

Rich":1q4nqk1m said:


> My OP didn't even mention the misdemeanour of Ross/Brand, but as they were in the news it brought to mind why they are termed comedians? that was the gist of my question and I stand by my opinion, in fact it would seem the heirarchy of the BBC are more suited to be termed comedians, :lol: I don't need a bandwagon to air my views and I have not seen or heard the telephone conversation to Mr Sachs :lol:
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Rich.


Well said Rich. IMO it matters not how many people complained on the night, in fact there could a thousand people phone to say what a good programme it was.

What matters is they committed a crime and should be punished.

On another forum I've seen people drag the media into this (bandwagon etc) also blaming the grand daughter for her behaviour, and one person dragging wars in Afganistan in - it's all spurious.

They made a mistake, they must pay


----------



## RogerS (30 Oct 2008)

Losos":zd0ndcxz said:


> .....
> What matters is they committed a crime and should be punished.
> .....



Ummm...what crime? I thought that we lived in a society where one was innocent until proven guilty. Just because anyone disagrees with what they said does not automatically make it a crime. The whole concept of what is and what is not an 'obscene' phone call can only be determined in a court of law. Any other point of view is precisely that ..a point of view.

I also understand that the granddaughter has sold her story to the tabloids. Says it all, really.


----------



## Digit (30 Oct 2008)

Then surely Roger the logical step is place it before a jury to decide.

Roy.


----------



## Rich (30 Oct 2008)

Good evening Losos, thanks for your input and quite right to, however the way this post is developing is broadening my original OP and leads me ask further questions that have come to mind as a consequence.

1. WHO actually oversees the spending/ allocation of the licence fees revenue, do they/he/she demand or enforce so much of documentary/drama/comedy/news/education/sport etc.

2. If it is OFCOM, then ofcom needs looking at closely too, as it only ever seems to act when the deed is already done, ie, after the horse has bolted.

3. For the broadcast to have gone out, at least ONE person at senior management level MUST have known what the content was going to be.

4. If the BBC trust is dismayed by the standards portrayed, then the trust itself is not doing it's job, and they too need looking into.

Regards,

Rich.


----------



## filsgreen (31 Oct 2008)

RogerS":1j36yvck said:


> filsgreen":1j36yvck said:
> 
> 
> > I apologise for using the Holocaust as an example to highlight my point, this event should not be used to get my point across. However, I was so incensed that people cannot have an opinion just because they did not hear the broadcast. I personally do not listen to either of these presenters so I was not privy to what was broadcast first hand, but once aware of it, I sent an e-mail to the BBC. Once again I am sorry if I offended anyone
> ...



I will repeat myself, it was the content that I was objecting to. It was immaterial that I did not hear it! 

Also it doesn't really matter what these people earn, if they are going to use their position to publicly denigrate innocent people then they must accept the consequences. 

The image you conjure is of the three monkeys, it's OK if I never saw or heard it.


----------



## Digit (31 Oct 2008)

Jenx pointed out that there were just two initial complaints. Not having any time for either of the culprits I didn't hear the programme.
The fact that just two complained might well suggest that the size of the audience isn't as large the Beeb likes to think.
The fact that many more complained afterwards has to be as a result of their being made aware of what happened through the press and other media.
I cannot see that is a problem either, after all, just how many people actually heard Enoch's 'Rivers of blood' speech and how many judged it from the press of the day.
Surely that is what the press is for?

Roy.


----------



## newt (31 Oct 2008)

I see Ross is going to lose a considerable amout of money, poor chap, should we have a whip round for him. Running for the door. :twisted:


----------



## Digit (31 Oct 2008)

Yes, it's necessary to suffer for your art isn't it? :lol: 

Roy.


----------



## Jenx (1 Nov 2008)

Digit":2segfp43 said:


> Surely that is what the press is for?
> .



Thats very true, Roy.
I guess the 'problem' (if one can call it that ) with _any_ press report, on _any_ subject is that its seldom _truly_ un-biased in the pure sense of the word. It cant be really.. its always going to be one man's 'take' on something to a certain degree.

I heard an interesting 'side-slant' on Radio Scotland today - in a show thats hosted by Lesley Riddoch and one of todays guests was Stewart Cosgrove ( I appreciate that they may not be all that well known, south of 'the wall' )... Cosgrove is a long-time independent producer, and works a lot for Channel 4 and the Beeb amongst others ... he was making the point that ( to quote approximately ) " These rows which seem to blow up beyond what could be deemed as an acceptable level given their possible lack of true newsworthiness , are generally fuelled by a deeper seated problem concerning the main protagonists", .......

....and went on to highlight in very great detail, that there is a long-running and highly volatile row between OFCOM and the BBC, due in no small part to the Beeb being the only broadcasting company in the UK to be outwith OFCOM's control, and in this instance in particular ( the Brand / Ross debacle ) were continuing to insist that they would be 'carrying out investigations' etc .... which is in conflict with what OFCOM desire, as it is in fact the BBC who are in the dock, so to speak, themselves. -- 

Does slightly make one wonder about "judge, jury & executioner"... which never seems to be a particularly good concept.

He ( Cosgrove ) went on to highlight that the Mail / Telegraph had today (friday ) somehow managed to 'expand' the subject matter into promoting what was nearing becoming tantamount to encouraging civil revolt against local government regarding poor control of publicly funded expenditure in all areas nationwide .... jumping on the back of the BBC not using its financial resources which are publicly raised, to the 'best ends' :roll: 

Interesting to get a 'proper insiders' slant on things !.
It sounds a bit bizarre, but when you heard Stewart Cosgrove putting the points across, it was clear that there was, and is, more to this than us 'ordinary bodkins' realise - and that the chance for both sides ( OFCOM & BEEB ) to milk the respective udders of it are possibly a long way from being finished yet !

Like most things in life... Things are seldom what they initially seem  


Never mind ... once this one blows over - I might start another 'heated ruck' going by stating that the Moon landings are utterley fraudulent and man ain't never set foot on the ol' ball of cheese, and never will .........
but thats for another day when we're all bored :wink:


----------



## Digit (2 Nov 2008)

Watch some clips of Eric and Ernie last night. Remember them with Andre Previn, Shirley Bassey or Glenda Jackson anyone?
Still hilariously funny IMO and a not a gratuitous swear word anywhere.

Roy.


----------



## Paul Chapman (2 Nov 2008)

Digit":1nhf80he said:


> Remember them with Andre Previn, Shirley Bassey or Glenda Jackson anyone?



Classics  

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## RogerS (2 Nov 2008)

filsgreen":50ydokg8 said:


> RogerS":50ydokg8 said:
> 
> 
> > filsgreen":50ydokg8 said:
> ...



Each to their own, I guess. Can't see the logic somehow. 



> Also it doesn't really matter what these people earn, if they are going to use their position to publicly denigrate innocent people then they must accept the consequences.



That's not what I said. I believe that a large number of people complaining are only doing so because they want to indirectly have a pop at Ross because of his very large salary.



> The image you conjure is of the three monkeys, it's OK if I never saw or heard it.



Don't really understand your point here but anyway, as I said above, each to their own.


----------

