Comedians

[filsgreen]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

.......
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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Roy.

 

[Losos]

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]

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]

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]

.....
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]

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

Roy.

 

[Rich]

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.