13:10 - 14:00
Jonathan Dimbleby presents a panel discussion of news and politics from Rugby High School.
And is it important to you to hear directly from the Director General?
Click on comment to let us know.
And if you want to read other comments on the story - look on the right hand side (under Categories) for SPECIAL: Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross.
The PM blog has been THE forum for people to comment on this story. Janet Street- Porter mentions the reaction in her Independent column today.
Jump to more content from this blog
PM The evening news and current affairs programme presented by Eddie Mair.
iPM The programme that starts with its listeners. Join the discussions online and contribute ideas for a weekly programme presented by Eddie Mair and Jennifer Tracey.
Read the final report of the PM Privacy Commission.
Meet the commissioners, view the terms of reference and hear the Commission Chair Sir Michael Lyons explain his approach.
BBC © 2012 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~20~RS~)
RSS feed
Email us
Our Twitter
Listen to PM
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
The longer the BBC drags its feet over disciplining Ross and Brand the more the suspicion will grow that the wrong people are in charge and that they have succeeded in putting in place a culture that is inimical to letting genuine talent flourish.
Complain about this comment
"What I've done is ask personally for an investigation ... we need to find out the facts ... with some urgency ... blah blah blah."
For God's sake. Brand and Ross made offensive remarks. Ross seems contrite. Brand does not. The beeb pussy footing around identifying who was responsible (how hard can it be!) simply prolongs the offence and devalues the 'apology' given.
Brand needs to apologise genuinely - none of this "but it really was funny" rubbish - or be sacked. The BBC needs to grow a spine and make it happen.
Complain about this comment
I too am disappointed that the pair haven't been suspended pending the outcome of the internal investigation.
I recall the BBC's reaction to a comment made by the late Kenny Everett on his radio show about a government minister's wife. What a difference a few years make!
Complain about this comment
Sir,
I am watching Breakfast TV at the moment, the item re Ross & Brand. Unfortunately just proved the lack of interest by the BBC senior management in the publics disgust of the law breaking and tasteless antics of Ross & Brand.
All they could produce was some self opinionated I am and a retired controller who was really out of touch with broadcasting today.
SHAME on you BBC.
Where are the Police?
Where is the broadcasting watchdog?
In this era of political correctness the BBC appears to be outside the law!
Twoputter.
Complain about this comment
Its best that the people investigating get the facts for themselves as alot of people seem to be making there mind up from what others have told them, this process should not be rushed. The prank is really in the style of both Ross and Brand so in a way they were doing what they are paid to do. The problem is they picked the wrong target, which is when it becomes offensive. Rather than a witch hunt the BBC need to look at what checks are made for such stunts before they are carried out.
Complain about this comment
Director General getting involved! - Hasn't he or shouldn't he have more important things to worry about.
Sir John Tusa and others seem to be all getting on the bandwagon.
As regards to Janet Street-Porters article, I agree with every word.
And yes someone should carry the can, but at the end of the day the whole story is getting blown out of proportion.
Perhaps as it's a welcome deflection from the credit crunch.
Complain about this comment
It's not difficult - if the BBC had any sense of responsibility, the alarm bells should have been ringing when the show first went out, but it definitely needed a quick reaction following the Mail on Sunday story. What we've got is a lumbering dinosaur which doesn't seem to be particularly gripped by the urgency of the situation, with the management behaving like ostriches.
BBC executives should have been on the phone to one another throughout Sunday, and as soon as it was clear that the story was taking off bigtime, announced that Brand and Ross had been (temporarily) taken off the air pending an inquiry.
Blaming the producer alone isn't the answer - the public are looking for a a sense of leadership further up the food chain, and the longer they vacilate, the worse it gets. In the end, someone big is gonna go for this, so sit tight everyone and enjoy the ride!
Complain about this comment
Have just heard the news on Radio 4 at 9 a.m.: another controller (suit) claiming that Ross and Brand "overstepped the mark" and that they are both "at the top of their game". The BBC clearly has a corporate line on this - wheel out the guns to defend artistic integrity; downplay the actions; play up the "quality" of their assets. Morality anyone? Sorry, that went out the door with Hutton.
Let us remind ourselves that this was an obscene and defamatory message left on a personal phone, broadcast to the public and out of which the presenters (and the BBC) personally profited (unless the BBC did not pay these two for their "work"). Seeking to profit from crime is even more serious than making the remarks in the first place.
No BBC. Your reactions to this demonstrate that you have no morality; compliant executives scared to rock the boat; and a contempt for both the law and your public. Continue on this road and you will soon have no licence fee. Or is this the intention?
Complain about this comment
When the both the PM and the LotO waste parlimentary time with a comment, you know you are in the middle of a classic tabloid media-fueled moral panic; the reaction so far is ludicrously disproportionate to the actual offense caused. Its all (predictably) reminiscient of the nonsense that surrounded the broadcast of the "Brasseye" special a decade ago.
Yes there is a question about editorial judgement but that is an internal matter that should be dealt with by the proper channels. But the extent to which people and media have reacted is completely irrational, to the extent that perhaps its not entirely as honest and spontaneous as it may seem.
For one, the commercial media have always got an axe to grind with the BBC generally - so jealous of the public subsidy, they will leap on anything that could cast the beeb in a bad light. Look at how ITV were treated after being caught red-handed (quite literally) robbing their viewers - no public sackings, no lost contracts... nothing.
In addition, what do the complainants think would actually happen if the two were dismissed - do you honestly expect them to just disappear? No, all that would happen is a commercial media company would just snap them up (I'm sure C4 would welcome them both with open arms), hence the Beeb would lose two very talented broadcasters for what amounts to a slight error of judgement.
Part of the problem is that, Post-Gilligan (and queengate), the self-flaggelating BBC is so paranoid about how it is externally perceived that even it is joining in the attack (including this program). Where is your sense of self-confidence? Get a backbone and back your talent.
For what its worth, I wouldn't give too much creedence to the usual rent-a-mob who have turned up late to the party to make a fuss. Those thousands who have apparently made complaints should really question their motivations - are you all [i]really[/i] that offended? Honestly?
Complain about this comment
What infuriates me is the fact that, at the time of broadcast, 2 people complained, according to Eddie on last night's PM. Which means that most, if not all, of the 10,000 complaints made since the story broke have been made without even hearing the item.Reminds me of the uproar about Jerry Springer: the Opera - mass protests by people who hadn't even seen it and thought they were in a position to judge it. I believe that mass hysteria based on hearsay is possibly more harmful than the original material, but since I didn't hear Brand and Ross, I couldn't possibly comment...
Complain about this comment
I listened to them yes it was funny and went on. But to be honest been blown out of control etc. Ross is funny and also is brand - i listened to other radio stations done things 10 times worse. If BBC going to blame some one blame us as we like fun etc. If you listen to it few times and i heard clips on news etc seems worse but listen to it all and it is funny.. If these 2 get sacked be worse thing bbc done. Us public like these 2 and the producers or editors etc thought it was too bad should said stop. they didnt why because it was funny. If someone left that message on ross answer machine i bet he would of laughed. I think saying sorry is good enough...... 10.000 people complained? whow they must get lot listeners. i bet 80% of these was after it got out. people at home got nothing else better to do.
Complain about this comment
J_O_E_L_-_C (above)
The voice of reason, though I'm not sure that C4 could match JR's current salary in their current financial situation
Complain about this comment
As a licence payer I think Ross and Brand should be sacked.
Why should we pay these fowl mouthed mens wages???
Complain about this comment
Re; #8 germaniumdiode :-
You say the presenters personally profited.
They are contracted to provide entertainment which was no doubt their initial intention.
For one reason or another the whole episode was unsuitable for transmission - errors of judgement on the presenters and producer involved.
I personally don't condone any of the transmission but reading your comment makes them sound like they've attacked an old person who is now gravely ill in hospital.
Hardly the case.
Complain about this comment
"The prank is really in the style of both Ross and Brand so in a way they were doing what they are paid to do. "
If this is true, they should have been let go long ago. This type of purile behaviour may be suitable for late night saddo teenage boy radio, but hardly for prime time.
You have to ask, how would Jonathan Ross have acted if he had been the butt of the 'prank' and someone had made these phone calls to him about a member of his family.
I think the BBC, including all the newsreaders, are too frightened to say Ross and Brand were in the wrong.
Complain about this comment
Jonnie (14):
These two are paid extraordinary amounts of money. Shouldn't we expect a commensurate amount of professionalism from them? At the very least, Ross has been in the business long enough that he should have been able to judge the potential effect of what he was doing.
So either he's losing his broadcasting touch - in which case he's not worth so much public money* - or he just didn't care - in which case he's really not someone I want my licence fee to fund.
* Let him go to another channel and let the advertisers pay for his huge salary. I don't want to.
Complain about this comment
Eddie, why do you work there...?
The BBC misleading the public showing Queen Elizabeth storming out of a photo-shoot in a so called "huff". The television regulator, OFCOM, fines the BBC £50,000 for faking a Blue Peter programme. By the way, I don't think any BBC manager will have paid the fine - it will have been taxpayers and licence fee payers that will have been out of pocket for BBC shoddy behaviour. Then, if you remember, we eventually heard about deceits over phone in polls and competitions - which hurt worthy charaties like Children in Need. It seems to me the BBC is a nest of vipers.
Eddie, why do you work there...?
Complain about this comment
The BBC should be broken up and privatised - giving every licence-fee payer - free shares. The £135.00 licence fee should be handed back to viewers and listeners - ending decades of double taxation without representation. Let's allow viewers and listeners to make their own decisions on how their own money is spent. If the BBC is as good as it says - then it will survive, because listeners and viewers will vote with their remote controls and bank accounts - and not because the BBC has a captive audience and a hugely subsidised broadcasting monopoly.
Complain about this comment
regarding the comments made by Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross, how can it be that such highly paid broadcasters can be allowed to get away with such behaviour. I would expect Russell Brand to behave like this, Jonathan Ross however is paid vast amounts for his radio and tv work and as a father himself one wonders how he would react if he was in Andrew Sachs shoes. I use to enjoy both watching and listening to him but recently he seems to be making more and more lurid comments, especially to his tv guests. Whether or not the bbc condoned this broadcast surely both these broadcasters should know where to draw the line, and both should be sacked for this, after all others have lost their jobs over far less
Complain about this comment
Having seen Jonathan live he really works in a spontaneous way..much of his show isnt broadcastable but is nevertheless very funny.. it is clearly monitered before being broadcast..sometimes much to my dismay as a lot of the really funny bits (in my opinion) go. This time a joke has gone badly wrong and listeners who'd never know about Brand's show are being thrown in to an alien world.. I suspect his caustic comments about the Mail are resulting in that publication slavering to bite a big chunck out of his beating heart.
Complain about this comment
Eddie - has the BBC Truth Centre been built yet...?
Complain about this comment
Ironically enough for Brand and C4, this situation could end up benefiting them. His new TV series is due to be broadcast soon - I dare say they might get a few thousand extra viewers just watching in the hope of finding something ELSE to get offended about!
Can I also just remind those who are calling for the police to become involved, that the prank phone-call is a staple of entertainment-orientated radio and TV; everyone from "Fonejacker" to the benignly bland "Real Radio" use this technique extensively - there's nothing particularly new or outrageous about it. In this particular occasion, they got carried away - nothing more. The words "Baby" and "bathwater" spring to mind...
p.s. Rogford, I couldn't get the 'fowl'(sic)-mouthed image out of my head - just picturing the two with chicken's beaks...
Complain about this comment
Unless the director general desperately wants to meet me I'm not bothered if I hear from him or not. I'd rather hear about Obama and get excited that something amazing could happen in less than a week!!
Complain about this comment
Never mind all that, what I'd like to know, is when did Brand and Ross last see a Water Vole?
Complain about this comment
It's hard to form an option on the BBC's handling of this affair when the BBC refuses to appear on the BBC to explain what steps they are taking.
The chap on PM last night did neither himself nor the BBC much good with an essentially contentless interview.
If, initially, the controller of Radio 2 gave a couple of interviews saying that the corporation took this seriously, was instigating an enquiry, gave the terms of reference and the timescale then I don't think their would be much to complain about.
Now it has to be the DG who will need to answer some rather awkward questions about the institutional flaws in the BBC. In hope he does it today and I hope he does it on PM.
I also hope that when this is considered by the BBC Board the Chairman can be bothered to turn up (he was in New Zealand on the end of a phone when they considered the Queen walking backward affair).
I really don't give a toss about Ross/Brand keeping/losing their jobs. The problem is that the BBC senior management are not showing that they can actually manage the Corporation when presented with a really minor problem. They know that there are elements of the press and politicians who will seize this opportunity to demonstrate that the Corporation is badly run and needs to be "reformed". My view up to now was that the BBC was not spectacularly well run but that I'd take the the barricades to protect it from politicians and the likes of Murdoch. I'm beginning to wonder about that today.
Complain about this comment
I have never sent a comment to the BBc before but i am so annoyed about Brand and Ross I felt that I had to comment. They are arrogant and seem to think they are untouchable. I think the BBC should sack both of them. Show them who runs the BBC
Complain about this comment
Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross? Where were the Moderators when you needed 'em.
Complain about this comment
Re 9 and 10 - well, exactly.
1. Only 2 people who heard the show complained afterwards, and I believe that was about the F-word.
Pretty insignificant, in complaints terms.
2. A long-standing anti-BBC tabloid, the 'Mail on Sunday', picks up the story and prints a typical shock-horror anti-Auntie piece. Over a week after the broadcast.
3. The predictable furore ensues. Result for the MoS!
4. But - why didn't the Press Office at the Beeb pick this up and warn the relevant R2 person? Wheels should have started turning on Sunday morning.
5. The story snowballs on Monday. There should have been a BBC statement and apology available then, if not before.
6. The snowball becomes an avalanche. "Sack Brand and Ross!" "Down with the BBC!"
The Beeb does some hurried rearguard action. But by now 'Brandgate' has its own momentum.
7. Politicians etc see a chance to get some publicity for themselves by expressing outrage.
So:
8. No, the DG does not need to comment. At this moment, anyway. But, post-Hutton, he'll be feeling uncomfortable. Anyone remember Greg Dyke?
BUT:
9. None of this would have happened if the production and editorial team at R2 had had the sense just not to broadcast any questionable pre-recorded material.
So:
10. Who OK'd it? They're the ones who are probably on 'gardening leave' at the moment.
Complain about this comment
Oh, and hear, hear, jonnie.
Complain about this comment
Re: SSC #16
I agree with you that the money Ross is paid is absurd.
However there are people who thoroughly enjoy both of them, though I've no idea what the BBC Radio 2 listening figures are for Brands programme.
My issue is that the whole saga has received far too much attention.
As you say, he may well be losing his broadcasting touch, or judgement of what is or isn't acceptable, but isn't it the producers role to screen the material.
Either way, it's all being blown out of proportion.
Complain about this comment
This whole sad business just emphasizes
the depths of depravity to which this country has sunk
Surely the BBC should be producing programmes aimed at raising standards, not dragging them even further into the gutter.
Licence payers have a right to expect their fees will not be used to line the pockets of those whose chief attribute is to extend the bounds of acceptable behaviour to the lowest parts of society.
Complain about this comment
Re; Frances-O
I wish I could have summed it up that well.
Complain about this comment
@ 17. Tom_Harrop wrote:
"Eddie, why do you work there...?"
Because despite the odd slip-up, the beeb produces fantastic content and is still the world's premier broadcaster.
It just needs to forget the PR spin when employees step out of bounds, and get on with disciplining those concerned.
Complain about this comment
I'm surprised that anybody who listens to Radio 2 would bother to complain about hearing the f word.
Complain about this comment
Sorry, I missed the introduction to the interview with the "director". I thought initially you were interviewing the tea boy. I am sure he will get to the "Ba'bottom" of it. He even could not see him self talking with RB or JR!
He condemned it, but needed to investigate. As a referee he confirms that the actions were wrong so why not suspend the programs for 4 weeks while they investigate?
Notable quotes are "the actions we CAN take on this". What does that mean? Is he really just the tea boy or do they have contracts that have no get out clauses for misconduct?
Just had a look, he has only been in the job 2 months. And worse only in broadcasting 3 years. He used to be a brand manager for consumer drinks and soap. Obviously worked with a few comedians before!
Why hear from the Director General. He has been in the post since 2004 and over that time I have seen a steady decline in the integrity of the BBC. His past actions to rectify the phone-in fraud did not set any fear in people jobs for even organized fraud. Only the listener actually lost out, with the cancelling of all competitions.
Complain about this comment
The Brand/Ross apologists maintain that unsolicited calls to an elderly man suggesting that he kill himself in tandem with supplying him with the equally unsolicited information that his caller had had sex with his granddaughter constitutes 'cutting edge' humour.
To test this proposition the BBC should broadcast the home telephone and mobile numbers of Brand/Ross, their wives/partners, their children, their parents and, if possible, their grandparents. That way, the entire nation could 'push the boundaries' and live on the very edge with people who really appreciate it and who, themselves, have lived the dream
Complain about this comment
I'm just keeping my fingers crossed that Mohamed Al-Fayed doesn't request another inquest into the death of Diana.
Or indeed that Eddie doesn't ask us if we'd like the PM theme tune back again.
What became of Jack and Vera I wonder ;-)
Complain about this comment
I realise its unfashionable to suggest this, but why shouldn't the BBC be defending standards of decency? Why does it perpetually pander to gutter trivia and then defend it as 'what the people want'?
Brand, Ross and their errant producers should be sacked. Their talents are better suited to seedy bars and fringe clubs. Why they are paid immoral sums to be undisciplined and crude on a public mass broadcasting medium, is beyond logical defense.
Also if the DG doesn't today step up to face his public too over this matter, then he should go as well. How gumption-less is he?
The BBC seem to be making a habit of promoting low grade, over opinionated ego flatulent presenters like Clarkson of TopGear, who thug-like then parade their arrogance in news paper columns only to whine when the law calls then to account! Brand and Ross are of similar ilk.
Perversely this brouhaha will only add to their persona and probably increase their income from less discerning punters.
The independence of the BBC must be defended but not at the cost of its dependance on decency, self respect and courage to be upright in all matters.
Complain about this comment
I decided to listen to the telephone call so as to make an educated comment.
For what its worth the problem seems to be that Mr. Ross decided to make the comment about the granddaughter as a "cheap" jibe. This tends to be in keeping with his personna of being a baffoon, the reason I stopped watching his TV Prog., ( a poor replacement for Parkinson with guests that will only appear if promoting a film, book, or song).
I'm not sure if he is worthy of £6m. of tax payers money,what I am sure of is that the BBC should act with clarity and remove him, as I believe most listeners would like.
Come on management, manage.
Complain about this comment
Frances_O (28):
Does the fact that only two people out of the intended audience complained make the leaving of an obscene and offensive message on the answer-phone okay?
If a gang of chavs throw a rock at my front door at 3am and *all* find it funny (judging from the laughter as they ran away) is that acceptable behaviour as well?
I see little difference between the two situations and I'd be quite put out if I told the rock story to someone (which is true by the way) and they responded with, "Well I didn't see it happen at the time so I have no opinion on it."
This isn't hearsay from a dodgy newspaper, the offending clips are available both on the radio news and on the Internet for anyone who wants to hear them. I won't accept that hearing them "out of context" makes any difference. I can't imagine any context where such offence is okay.
I'm also a bit mystified with the attitude from some quarters that the fact that Ms Baillie is a dancer with a Goth band makes it fine for details of her alleged sex-life to be broadcast on national radio and left on her grandparents' answering machine.
Far from being pure hype, this subject just keeps dredging up more and more unpleasantness and I *would* like the DG to come on the programme and purge this once and for all.
Complain about this comment
In the current climate of "PC-ness" I am surprised this was passed for broadcast. Then again, I am not, considering how desparate the BBC is to attract new listeners. Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross used their position and acted like playground bullies. That I would expect from the supposed calibre of these two men. But for the production team to allow it to be broadcast is totally inexcusable. How would Ross feel is someone made comments about his children in such a manner? He would be the first to sue. As for Russell Brand, I am not surprised.
They should both be suspended without pay. That would hit them where they hurst - in the pocket - which seems to be the only place they have any feeling in.
Also, anyone with any shread of decency should have nothing to do with any of their shows on any channel.
Complain about this comment
SSC, of course not.
The phone call sequence should never have been broadcast in the first place, exactly because it is offensive and unacceptable.
But the thousands of complaints only started coming in after the MoS printed its story and other media picked it up.
If I failed to make this clear, I apologise.
Complain about this comment
I work so hard for my money- I would have lost my job if I had made any comments like these two jokers. Anyway- what EXACTLY do they do?? What a pair of wasters. Woss and Bwand, why don't you both get off your high horses and live in the real world- your a disgrace.
Bye from Mrs Angry!!!
Complain about this comment
jonnie - you're on good form today! ;o)
Complain about this comment
I see the volume of complaints is up to 18K...
Is there any mechanicsm to register anti-complaints? i.e. "I would like to un-complain about the broadcast", just to balance up the figures a bit on behalf of the silent majority (who don't give a cobblers either way)...
Complain about this comment
Frances_O
Re your summing up (28):
There is at least another way to look at it:
1. The Mail on Sunday piece brought behaviour to the attention of a lot of people who are already sick of Ross in particular and who are unlikely to seek out more exposure to him. (But tolerate his presence in far too long-suffering a way if you want my own opinion.) It was just the snowball that started an avalanche waiting to happen.
2. If the BBC has been skiing off piste then it ought to have realised that sometimes the consequences of doing that are sufficiently serious to make it
a good idea to choose one's skiing companions with greater care and certainly not to take advice from fools.
3. To say that there is somehow something wrong with criticizing the BBC because there may be those with ulterior motives who do likewise is to miss point that so many people care passionately and want to see the BBC flourish (which is my own stance), not bury itself. As Blake said "Opposition is true friendship."
So -
I want someone to stand up and be counted. If this is the DG's Mark Antony moment, well, let's hear it.
Complain about this comment
1. This broadcast was offensive, lewd and possibly illegal.
2. Therefore the presenters should be disciplined and probably lose their jobs.
3. BBC Radio2 needs to consider why it is chasing ratings rather than broadcasting real comedy.
4. DON'T try to blame it all on a junior producer.
Complain about this comment
Once a fan, but now think both of them should go,as I help to pay their overpriced salaries through my licence. Stop pandering to the less mature yougsters who may think their latest unfunny stunt was funny.
Complain about this comment
Feet dragging again.
The facts must be easy to establish...in minutes. Delayed "apology"...wishy washy words....no action worthy of the BBC.
The "powers" who are responsible for letting the tripe be braodcast should be identified now and action taken. The two so called "comedians" should be removed from the BBC without delay. I do not pay my fee to have the organisation spend my money on insulting rubbish...worse still they seem totally inacapable of seeing what the many thousands of the fee paying public can see?..are the BEEB scared of losing Brand and Ross...why?...the public do not want them.
Is the BBC a moral organisation?
Complain about this comment
The BBC has gone OTT with this story and I am sure Mr Sachs is sick of hearing about it by now.
What the BBC has done here by making it the main headline on many of its news broadcasts is allow the Government to use it to bury bad news such as 70% rise in home reposessions.
The most interesting thing about this story is that the Prime Minister decided to comment on it yet failed to comment on the 70% rise in home reposessions.
Well done to the BBC for making this story a top story above it, you should get yourself Labour Party membership.
Complain about this comment
More dismaying than the puerile behaviour of Brand and Ross is the predictable response of the BBC. On both PM and News 24 channels the presenters made the point that the that only 1% of the 10,000 and 18,000 responses respectively, were supportive of Ross, Brand and the BBC, and yet the first 8 letters read out on PM were the supportive letters, followed by a number of the complaints. The same distorted pattern was replicated on News 24. Such blatant misrepresentation has become symptomatic of a corporation that has become detached from its founding principles of fair and honest journalim by of its own hubris. The deliberate misrepresentation of the public position on this issue in terms of the framing of the reports, the coverage of the public views, the priority given to the literally tiny minority who were supportive of the stunt, is a deliberate attempt to shape reality instead of report it like the BBC claim they do. The BBC is not only suffering from plummeting standards of journalism, it is also becoming increasingly economical with the truth. From the outset the corporation has deliberately ducked the issue of whether what the pair did was wrong, whether there had been an editorial failure (indeed only the pressure of public response has prompted the beeb to investigate the matter). Rather than acknowledge the indefensible actions of these men attempts are made to embroil the issue in questions of demographics, of splits in age, of a youth that needs to be connected with. How can boasting of sexual exploits with a man's grand daughter be held up as in any way beneficial entertainment for young people. Should the BBC not be engaged in trying to elevate standards? The nature of the joke is not even sophisticated. I am a teacher and I come across more sophisticated rapport among 12 - 13 year olds than this. But again the BBC abandons integrity and for its own interest rather than for the public interest that it is paid to serve, invests all its energy in trying to dodge the bullet. It plays for time with an enquiry in the hope that it will not need to make heads roll. I do not know how I fit into the BBC's demographic pidgeon holes. I am 34 with a first in an MSc, so how that changes the significance of my opinion I do not know, but as my opinion is different from the cultural position of the BBC it surely will. All I can say is that I have only ever in my life sent, i think, 5 messages to message boards. Yet this issue seems to highlight the systemic failure of the BBC and the culture of hubris and complacency that runs through it. To the point that ordinary people like myself are becoming increasingly skeptical about the validity of the things they see and hear from this once noble institution.
Complain about this comment
Frances_O (42):
No, I'm sure the lack of clarity is only in my response. I was trying to say that I don't see that it makes any difference how the story was brought to a wider audience; whether it was the most anti-BBC rag around, or Private Eye, or PM, or Ariel (that's the BBC's internal magazine isn't it?) the reaction from the public would have been the same, perhaps slower building that's all.
As Ilavabeer says at 46, this isn't an overblown reaction to a single incident it's a straw on a camel's (donkey's?) back, building on the increasingly bad behaviour of these two presenters.
Jonnie, you're right that the producer should bear the brunt of the blame (why hasn't he been named?) but someone has to be accountable for the culture that seems to have grown in the BBC that leads the producer and presenters to think this kind of thing is acceptable.
And just a thought on one of the early comments asking if we'd want the presenters to go back to wearing dinner jackets to present radio shows... yes. I think that would be nice. How about it Eddie?
Complain about this comment
Clearly the editor/producer should be demoted for not calling a halt to the phone call & then not editing it out. In no sense can this be described as defensible edgy comedy (pathetic schoolboy 'humour' or sub Gordon Ramsy cook live?). Brand's show should be closed because of the damage he has caused.
But the BBC needs to be supported against the usual suspects trying to destroy it - John Tusa should be ashamed of himself. The BBC's detractors like the Mail & Sun routinely trash peoples lives to make money & try to push the idea that anything popular cannot be public service.
Indeed it would be better to talk of a comprehensive service as a means of defending the licence system.
Complain about this comment
Here's a prediction:
Brand and Ross will probably get away with little more than a verbal warning - especially as the powers that be can point out that of all the complaints received, only 2 were received in the immediate aftermath of broadcast (i.e. from the show's target audience).
If anyone is persuaded to 'fall on their sword', it will be the producer, for failing to edit the segment out.
Although having not listened to the show, I don't know if they made any references to the answerphone message after making it, in which case editing would be harder as either (a) all references to the message would have to be removed, thus leaving the problem of how to make up the minutes (unlike commercial broadcasters, the BBC can't fill gaps with adverts - although I suppose they could have trailed other programmes...), or (b) leave them in and hope the audience don't notice the references to something they haven't heard.
Ofcom will probably request the BBC read a summary of adjudication, although given the fact the TV versions tend to be broadcast several months after the event, and at a seemingly random time (not obviously connected with the slot in which the offending show was broadcast), it's likely to be ineffectual. They may also impose a fine - which you can probably bet won't be paid out of the two presenters' salaries.
-oOo-
If there isn't already a code of conduct for presenters, then it's probably time to create one. And if one is created, then as well as explaining what is acceptable/unacceptable behaviour, it should also spell out sanctions for breaching the code. Which will hopefully be tougher than a verbal or written apology.
Even better - rather than just a BBC specific code, get together with other major broadcasters (e.g. Global Radio, which appears to be ITV-ising commercial radio) and thrash out a common code - so that the public know what can be expected if a presenter anywhere in the UK transgresses, regardless of which company they're broadcasting for.
Yes, a lot of comedy is deliberately "edgy", but there have to be clear ground rules. For example, I can't imagine anyone getting away with joking about certain aspects of the Islamic faith, or playing on negative stereotypes of ethnic minorities.
Complain about this comment
STOP PRESS
Brand and Ross suspended by BBC
Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand are to be suspended and all their shows taken off air until the BBC has investigated their prank calls made on Radio 2.
The news was announced in a statement by director general Mark Thompson.
Meanwhile, Georgina Baillie has told the Sun that Ross and Brand should be sacked over prank calls made to her grandfather, actor Andrew Sachs.
Complain about this comment
Hello
I think the pair of them should be sacked.
It is a cruel thing to do to a person, especially as it was meant to be entertainment.
The people who allowed it to be broadcast should also be sacked, as I understand it was a recorded piece.
Complain about this comment
mittfh 55, I hope they were suspended by their conkers.
Complain about this comment
Now that is better. Suspension. This stops them basking in the glory of the hype.
Now we wait for the balanced judgement in the interests of ALL the BBC financers.
Complain about this comment
I'm still mystified by the lack of interest by the Police. An obscene 'phone call has been made in public 'view'.
Complain about this comment
well, it's the old question, is the media establishing the nature of our culture or merely reflecting it. Since there are no absolutes [and if ever there was a nonsensical statement that has to be it] everything is up for grabs and Porter's article simply reflects the resulting confusion. If next week the BBC sense, through their audience polls, that the c-word is now acceptable to a majority, you may be sure it'll be making an appearance soon.
The only way the BBC honestly think that some line was crossed this time was that some producer mis-judged the state of the wider culture.........for the moment.
For anyone who retains some objective notions of morality, taste and quality, no Janet, these people are not and never have been funny and whether a remark is offensive or not has zilch to do with the age of the recipient. All that Ross' salary has to do with it is that it's indicative of the BBC's own relativism.....it simply has no basis for judgement, it considers truth to be statistical and so reflects the state of society. What 'is' is right, a majority confirms it and the power to do something is sufficient justification.......in the end the morality of de Sade.
Complain about this comment
I see from the BBC News web site that Brand and Ross have been suspended from appearing on the BBC.
I thing the DG really need to explain how his management team allowed this incident to get so out of control. It would be helpful if he did so this evening.
Complain about this comment
so .....suspended...no doubt on the VERY full pay the get (not earn).
I suppose this gives the BBC even more time to procrastinate, mull over, dither and finally come up with a "fudged" solution.
If the "frenzy" was, to a degree, the result of media publicity it does not change the facts Brand and Ross were completely wrong.
The very slow, weak response and apparent lack of moral fibre from the BBC is almost as bad.
What is wrong with people trying to improve standards for a change...the BBC seems not to care even if the public who pay them do!
Complain about this comment
The BBC's response since the story broke smacks of a management team on the back foot. It also indicates an editorial style apparently out of touch with public sentiment on a significant cultural issue. It looks like we Brits may be more concerned with the usual rules of civilised behaviour than might be indicated by, say, certain activities witnessed on many a UK market town High Street on a Saturday night. We're not all boorish louts, you know.
Complain about this comment
We are glad to see that the BBC has finally abandoned its elitist attitude and, by doing what any other employer would have done days ago, has also shown it can respond to the wishes of its paymasters, the general public. There can be no justification whatsoever in ever having tried to condone such puerile and offensive broadcasting in a publicly funded organisation that must, by its existence, have some influence on the behaviour of its younger viewers and listeners. If it learns through this that the audience does have certain standards and expects to see and hear them adhered to by judicious monitoring of what goes out in its name, the passing of these two will be an expensive lesson the BBC should learn from. We don't need or want censorship and lapses into bad taste are sometimes essential for humour but those two proved that arrogance and conceit are no substitute.
Alfred and Helen Bouch
Complain about this comment
SSC post 52
Perhaps the producer was a she?
Complain about this comment
I am bored with the radio 4 listenership. I am one of them. My day starts with Today and Ends with PM. But it appears that few members of this audience listen to Russell Brand. I don’t very often. I do however listen to Jonathan Ross on a Saturday morning. My partner loves his show, and its irreverent look at the world. It is part of our weekend.
The BBC is a very broad church, with many chapels. Very few move between them. There were 2 complaints about the show in its first week of broadcast, that only snowballed when those who love to complain about falling standards in society, government, schools and the BBC if not life itself got in on the act. An apology has been made by the BBC, Jonathan Ross (in person) and to some extent Russell Brand (I don’t believe he was sincere). But to remove them from the airwaves deprives us, the listeners of the program and the BBC. They will both find alternative employment, their 'notoriety' and quality assures it, however it will not be a national show and will deprive those outside the M25, myself and 90% of the population our choice of entertainment.
They have apologised and for the most part shown contrition. For members of the government and opposition to be weighing in on the matter is lunacy. Don’t spend time talking about understanding the needs of our nations listening habits and wishes - how about dealing with falling standards in banking, education, policing and the litany of other core government issues. Culture must and should be somewhere near the bottom of the list.
Complain about this comment
Tug(61) the Blog was pretty fast with the news...see the posting above, where you are welcome to comment further.
Complain about this comment
You ask, what do I think of the BBC's response? Quite frankly the BBC's response has been pathetic. Far too little, far too late.
If the BBC had any decency it would immediately sack both Brand and Ross. Not only would this be appropriate in light of their recent offence, but their sacking would raise the average quality of BBC output since both these characters are deeply unpleasant and completely devoid of talent ... and it would save the BBC a considerable sum of money since both are grossly overpaid.
Complain about this comment
Eddie: as ever, as ever. What else would you expect?
Martha's got the story; looking forward to how PM moves it on... ;o)
Complain about this comment
Perhaps I have missed the point in all this but I am little confused. Why is Ross being described as a comedian? He’s a Presenter, that’s all, okay so he gets a laugh every now and then and I’m sure he would love to be known as a comedian but that doesn’t make it so. He’s not a Maverick as I’ve heard him described, he just crude. After all on his own shows (Radio) he is prone to having some laughing fool in the background to make his jokes sound funnier! Brand is a comedian, and for the most part a good one, but in this instant they both over stepped the line. It was neither funny or comedic, maverick or otherwise.
The BBC should fire them and be done with it, other wise, whatever decision they come to will be seen as placating them.
Do the right thing Mr Thompson
Complain about this comment
Curvyjellybelly (65):
I'm going by the hint someone posted in one of these many threads fingering him as a vicar's son...
Complain about this comment
Suspending them won't be enough punishing to satisfy many of the flog'emandhang'em people, but seems a sensible way to pause the whole thing until it has been properly sorted.
Having heard Rachel Baillie (however that's spelt) just now on WatO, I realise just how stupidly unpleasant Brand was, and why my hackles rose well before the furore started: this Brand person is simply a cad. As she said, her private life ought to be private; 'kiss and tell' is odious from a starlet trying to make the grade via the casting couch, unforgiveable in a man who has taken advantage of his position as a 'name' to do so.
As for sending her messages asking her to break into her grandfather's house and destroy his answerphone before he heard it, that's the action of a pair of panicking nitwits. If Ross and Brand really wanted the messages to be erased they could have asked *Sachs* to do so, and they could have asked the BBC not to broadcast that bit of the programme. Had they done either, the chances are that Andrew Sachs might have told them what he thought of them (poor loves, they might have had to look him in the eye and take their lumps) and the BBC might have complained about the nuisance (and they might have been called stupid by their producer, which would have been a terrible thing to have to face) but they'd almost certainly have got away with it. They had two days in which to do a damage-limitation exercise, and clearly failed to do so. Saying 'sorry' *then* would have worked; now it just looks like a pathic attempt to save their sorry asses.
These two may well be lewd (excellent word just used in the headlines to describe the answerphone messages!) and objectionable in their language, but their real offence is folly beyond the acceptable. Oh, and in one case being a rather low form of life in the kiss-and-tell stakes, but then, presumably he was that already, just not over national radio.
Complain about this comment
Sorry as someone else said earlier Andrew Sachs is a entertainer and dod jokes years ago. This whole situation got out of control. Dosent matter how much they get paid if so pm even mentioned it, what loads of rubbish i thought we got credit problem. I think ross and brand are funny and be shame to lose them. I bet you 10,000 complaints were people over 40 and nothing else to do. Come on BBC do right thing smak on wrist stop pay for 1 month. brand and ross were doing what they get paid for, if it was wrong the bbc should be fined as they let it go on air.....
Complain about this comment
I am still wondering why anyone at the BBC would think it ok for its employees to make obscene phone calls let alone broadcast them. Jonathon Ross is old enough to know better although I have stopped watching his increasingly infantile show. I'm not prudish I love a bit of smut and inuendo, that, after all is very much British humour. But I do not like spiteful humour and this was spiteful and unpleasant. Is it an age thing? Maybe. But if this is what our children and twenty and thirty somethings think of as funny then I feel sorry for them.
How would either of these men feel if their grandparents had abusive messages left on their voice mail. How would the people who think they did nothing wrong feel if such messages were left on their loved ones voice mail. Or maybe they just don't care.
Ross, Brand go away and play somewhere else. There are plenty of talented people just wating for a chance to fill your over paid shoes.
Complain about this comment
I hate to add to an ever burgeoning blog about this but it all seems way over the top. I've gone off Ross' chat show as he's so self-centred and I've never been a fan of Brand, but to see his pathetic efforts at apolgy over this drives me ever further away - but to have the DG making statements, ministers in the government joining in, 1000's of man-hours lost in reading all this and more and more "send a gunboat" comments just seems out of proportion.
I've taken to watching and listening through iPlayer where I can make my own mind up.
Someone has to go - probably the producer - but Ross and Brand should show some genuine contrition if they are ever going to get back to public popularity.
Complain about this comment
Also i like to comment - brand is a good citizen, he was filmed helping someone when all public left this person alone. People might say he say cameras know way he could see or known about it. But to me this radio show was a joke they did for us. If you dont like it turn it off, when you go to dvd shop do you take dvd what they give you or make your own choice. Give these guys a break - mr ross has given so much to tv and charity be a shame.... BBC bring them back. I only watch film 2008 and odd occasion watch him friday night. But he is funny on tv. HAs a laugh...
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
At last Ross and Brand are to be suspended.In my tread last night I questioned why they were not already suspended,if not why not?.there is something seriously wrong within the Human Resource function of the BBC when it has taken as long as it has for these two stupid individuals to be suspended.The DG if he does not ensure they are fired will be in no position to consider himself a responsible person of integrity.He must now understand that he must manage his organisation or see its further decline in the eyes of its viewing public.Indeed I wonder just how many employees of the BBC would not be embarrised to say they work for an organisation that retains these two brainless liabilities.They would be fired in any other organisation with management of integrity.Every manager aware of this issue I'm sure will watch to see if there is any semblance of management within the BBC.Like others in management,management will use there sphere of influence to use this incident to demonstrate how not to manage.they should be fired in shame.DG show some professional management if you are to have any degree of crediability and shake up your human resource function in line with employment legislation.
Complain about this comment
My apology for the word 'pathic', which was meant to read 'pathetic', in post 72, appeared and has now vanished, so I am repeating it. If they post both, sorry about that.
Complain about this comment
I dislike these two performers so I didn't listen to their broadcast. Of those who did very few were offended it seems. The offence caused to Andrew Sachs is genuine and unpleasant but somewhat mitigated by his original intention to participate in the programme and providing the phone number. Once again a national newspaper is leading public opinion by the nose. At least it is of some benefit that Brown is involving himself in trivia rather than issues of significance that affect us all. The BBC should proceed on the basis of the complaints received from Sachs and listeners to the programme. But ignore idiots who read the Daily Mail.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I'm sorry if I don't answer your question directly but it seems to me that the real issue is about the editorial chain of command & the training of editorial staff. I read in the paper today that the programme editor is 25 years old; there is no problem with that as long as the young gentleman concerned is fully aware of his responsibilities to the licence paying public as well as to the public in general. Artists such as Ross & Brand have a huge follwing & therefore, like it or not, are hugely influential over a large swathe of the population. As a school teacher, I am constantly having to deal with students who just don't realise the effect their comments/behaviour might have on others. Well, they are children & it is the duty of adults to make them aware of the consequences of their behaviour. If a school does not take action against behaviour which is hurtful to members of the school community, it is sending out the message that it does not really feel such misdemeanours are serious & teachers (editors) will not feel they are likely to be supported if they take action. This will create an ethos in which such behaviour becomes the norm. The more seriously such behaviour is sanctioned by the school/BBC, the stronger the message that bullyiing/distasteful behaviour in the public arena is intolerable. For the sake of the general ethos of society as a whole, I would like to see serious action taken against Ross & Brand & I would not like them to be given contracts by the BBC again in the future. This does not mean that I think they are evil individuals but that the BBC, as an extremely powerful arbiter of British cultural life overall, must take a stand against yobbish behaviour on the airwaves. A slap on the wrist will suggest that the corporation is taking action under pressure from the public outcry & rebuke from politicians.
The BBC must take a stand against yob culture & give Ross & Brand an incentive to develop their careers & creative talents in an arena which does not represent what is considered to be of ethical as well as artistic value in the life of the nation.
Complain about this comment
I feel somewhat responsible for this as Jonathan Ross got into TV by taking a job I turned down. I turned down the job because the production company concerned seemed incredibly amateur and juvenile, in their approach to making TV programmes, compared to the BBC, whom I was working for at the time.
It seems like the BBC have taken on the values of two-bit production companies, rather than the other way round, as should have happened.
Having said all of this, Jonathan Ross is an intelligent and talented broadcaster, who has overstepped the mark. He seems now to be expressing remorse, in the appropriate manner, although I wish he had acted this way sooner.
Russell Brand is a talentless oik, symptomatic of the new breed of 'celebrity' who is famous, not with regard to any talent they posess, but simply for being seen at the right parties. His behaviour. in this affair, has been despicable. The BBC should not sack him, but simply see out his contract without giving him any further work, thus preventing him from working for anyone else and doing us all a favour.
Ross, should be read the riot act and warned over his future behaviour. He should also be asked to give a substantial sum to a charity of Andrew Sachs's choice. I worked with Andrew on a couple of occasions and he is a lovely man, who did not deserve this sort of treatment.
If the BBC DO decide to sack Ross, please can I have his job, by way of serendipity?
Complain about this comment
I hope we're not heading for another Hutton incident. Greg Dyke made a mistake for not intervening sooner and showing leadership. Having been in broadcast management in the Netherlands, speed is extremely important here. What Ross and Brand did was to break all the BBC guidelines on ethics and good taste. Fire the BBC producer, suspend the talent and get them to do something for the community (like Comic Relief). From this side of the water it looks like many other BBC programmes seem to be devoting far to much attention on the airwaves. Is it serious, yes. Is it urgent that the BBC DG deals with this in the next 24 hours? Yes. Is it important? No.
Complain about this comment
Will the suspensions satisfy the "hang 'em and flog 'em brigade"? I very much doubt it. Let's get this straight, what these two did was spiteful, childish and about as funny as a dose of diptheria. But they aren't child molesters or mass murderers, just somewhat silly entertainers enjoying a puerile prank. I don't think that they deserve to be sacked. They have been chastised and, no doubt, chastened by the recent furore. Some people seem to enjoy the mob mentality that has led to this witch hunt. Enough already!!
Complain about this comment
What worries me is why this has been the lead story (Ross and Brand) on all BBC news today whilst the death of 160 people in an earthquake in Pakistan, literally thousands of people fleeing for their lives in the Congo and Chinas' acknowledment that its green house gas emmission are as huge as those from the United States get only a brief mention?
What are the values that drive the BBC news teams?
Complain about this comment
Suspension is not sufficient punishment for Brand and Ross. They are vastly overpaid for their frequently peurile behaviour and are a disgrace to the BBC.
Sacking of these two might restore some faith in the BBC aiming to maintain standards. The trash that Ross and Brand come out with is NOT what most of us pay our license fee for.
Complain about this comment
I haven't read all the comments on all the threads, but has anybody considered whether R&B called Sachs to discuss his granddaughter's (snicker snicker) rather odd career?
FLASH!! Brand is resigning from his Radio 2 program.
Complain about this comment
51) dudesottovoce
Spot on. Agree absolutely.
How the BBC has failed to manage this situation is more important to me than what Brand and Ross did.
The BBC has a systemic liberal bias and tries to convince everyone that its pinko view of the world is reality. I'm glad that thousands of listeners have taken the trouble to register their view that the BBC is in fact drifting further and further away from reality...
Complain about this comment
Q: Why were there only two complaints following the Woss and Bland broadcast but fourteen thousand complaints since?
A: Because there were only four people listening to the show (and two of them were Bland and Woss)!
Complain about this comment
David (88):
"...has anybody considered whether R&B called Sachs to discuss his granddaughter's (snicker snicker) rather odd career?"
She works in a sweet shop?
Complain about this comment
This case has opened a host of issues for the BBC
(1) Why was policy concerning material suitable for broadcast so blatantly ignored by the 'talent' and the editorial team - apparently they were calling Ms Baillie, the subject of Brand's claims, immediately after the recording asking her to recover the telephone recordings before her grandfather, Andrew Sachs, could hear them. They were aware the material had gone too far, they could therefore have told the production team to pull it from the show.
The show was reviewed prior to transmission, yet nobody considered it in contravention of broadcasting regulations?
(2) Somebody in the production team contacted Mr Sachs, played him the material over the phone, and asked if it was okay to broadcast. The reply was negative, but was entirely ignored and the BBC went ahead with transmission.
Have the BBC never heard of release consent? Of course they have, but in this case they have decided to ignore it.
(3) The aftermath - who the hell is in control down there? Nobody apparently! The response has stumbled and bumbled along until finally reaching some form of positive action tonight. I want to hear the DG and Head of Radio on the Today programme in the morning with Humphries grilling them on a high flame - likely?
Well if it doesn't happen the BBC had better start making new funding plans. Both ITV and Channel 4 are questioning the BBC's monopoly on the license fee, and with incidents like this one it would make a tempting manifesto pledge for the BBC's television tax to be reviewed and renegotiated.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Brand/Ross should have been sacked!
A program researcher caught using this sort of foul language over the phone would have been sacked on the spot.
Civility cost nothing but all that’s gone down the pan, thanks in no small part to the likes of Brand/Ross being held up as roll models.
I feel this could open a flood of obscene phone calls to utility companies and call centres” If It’s OK for a BBC presenter , It’s OK for anyone”.
Regards
CPM
Complain about this comment
I think that so far the bbc have acted correctly in suspending both Brand and Ross until all the facts can be established so that any others involved can be clearly identified and accept resposibility for their involvement. I`m not a fan of either but do not want them to be singled out if others ae just as guilty. Lets hope this is the start of a new code of moral ethical and professional standards that the bbc will in future enforce.
Complain about this comment
Some people called the Brand/Ross tripe as a childish prank; they are a pair of overpaid buffoons. Brands so called apology was nothing short of sticking two fingers up at poor Mr Sachs.
Regards
CPM
Complain about this comment
Does anyone realy believe Ross/Brand could actually show their faces or be provided with access to public broadcasting again?.Brand in his resignation said he only did the show to make people laugh.In other words easy come easy go,Oh and realy the absourd amount of money he was receiving dident come into it.Charity was it?Such a statement from such a halfwit who could not get a proper appology together for all those he offended. As for Ross with his single brain cell he should be fired and not return to any form of broadcasting.Whatever about their futures I hope they realise they are not fit role models or people who should be heard from in any form of media given their actions.As a fee payer I believe the BBC would be well shut of them and money better spent in promoting some real talent.Perhaps they will realise their days in front of a camera or a microphone are over as they find their fans has moved on to others with true talent of a decent nature.
Complain about this comment
I am no fan of Mail newspapers but I don't feel the need to disagree with it on every issue purely on principle. The public reaction is not about a single programme that few heard, nor is it about the language - the reaction is about the shallowness of the celebrity culture that surrounds these mediocrities.
GIven the banality of the output the BBC's justification that there is a duty to push the boundaries is laughably self-serving.
The question is pushing the boundaries of what and to what end? - this is Jonathan Ross we are talking about not Jonathan Miller. The spokespersons on Radio 4 this evening sounded like media caricatures from Private Eye.
Complain about this comment
What also concerns me is this was not a live broadcast. Have the people that actually authorised this to be put on teh radio been disciplined also?????
Complain about this comment
I have not been viewing J. ROSS for some time now. I felt he was over the top and not anyone our famaily could look up to. All this without complaint to the BBC.
Now after this very serious 'crossing the line' incident, we hope his contract will be terminated. The extremely high salary is not warranted.
The Manager that perused the program before transmission also needs to be replaced, he or she does not consisder
the example such program content gives
to the youngsters. Probably the cause of many delinquent attitudes to life.
L. Chandler
Complain about this comment
I think theres too much fuss about this it seems to be old people who are outraged and they didnt even listen to it i did and i think it was funny but thats just me
Complain about this comment
On Brand and Ross
In most organisations, when someone makes a mistake (knowingly or otherwise) the general rule is that you recognise it, apologise, and move on. Having said that, there are some mistakes that are so serious that more is needed than an apology. Employers impose sanctions. These impress upon the miscreant the seriousness of the offence, and send a signal to others that repeating the activity won't be tolerated.
A lot of people are convinced the line was left a long way behind on this one. A lot of people seem to take the view that comedian's should not themselves decide where the boundaries of acceptable humour lie.
Complain about this comment
I think this whole thing has grown too big. They made an error, apologised. Everyone is complaining about the wages etc etc. I think people are trying to bring others done for a silly error. Having said that all the pictures of the girl in the papers, looks like she is milking just ever so slightly. In regards to her Grandad, he shouldn't have been part of the gag. However now everyone is calling for money to be wasted on this as a debate. Let it go and lets keep Ross on his friday spot. Love the show and will remain a fan.
Complain about this comment
Given that the bbc received only a minute number of complaints about the Brand/Ross programme until the programme was given greater publicity more than a week later, doesn't the whole bbc news reaction (the lead story on every news bulletin and longer news programme for the last few days) hint at schadenfreude on the part of bbc news staff at the plight of their hapless colleagues at radio 2. Is this really a big enough story to dominate the news at a time when the world financial system appears to be progressively collapsing, British forces are overstretched in two wars and another monstrous human tragedy appears to be unfolding in The Congo. Be carefull bbc news. If I may mix my metaphors this fanning the flames comforts and makes bullets for those who wish to subvert the bbc for their own commercial reasons and may bring pigeons home to roost. The value of the licence fee in terms of content, and listening and viewing time far outweighs that of my sky subscription,which, like most of my friends, and I suspect, a majority of subscribers, only get for the sport.
Complain about this comment
Suspending Jonathan Ross doesn't go far enough- sack him.
Complain about this comment
Suspending Jonathan Ross isn't good enough- sack him- he represents what's wrong with the BBC- weakly accepting the premise that all comment is good- LEAD INSTEAD OF BEING LEAD BY THE NOSE- LORD REITH HAD IT RIGHT.
Complain about this comment
I’m sure folks who think this was funny laughed like mad the last time they taunted their victims (people in deep trouble with too much on their minds because of the credit crunch?)
Only humourless people with nothing to do complain? This is backwards thinking. If we all try to treat people with respect, there are far more folks laughing and enjoying life!
Bullying is a problem. How many innocent victims have been told this week: ’Brand and Ross were funny taunting Sachs. So we can taunt you the same!’ This is the real problem. Those two are a terrible example, and the support for them is evidence of this.
Complain about this comment
The BBC and others have referred to the demographic distribution of comments on the Brand/Ross debacle, pointing out that a younger age group sees nothing wrong with the prank in question. That they are treating this fact as partly excusing their mistake in allowing edginess to go so far over the edge is disturbing and ill-considered. It may complicate their assessment of the appropriate, but actually points to the need for a complete re-evaluation of how, as a public body, they affect the public zietgeist. (sp?)
That the younger generation cannot distinguish between edgy humour and lack of social empathy should point to the long term effect of the lack of social responsibility exhibited by all forms of media.
By the way, I watch and find both of these humourists very funny, but am disconcerted by how thick-skinned they expect their guests or audience to be, and feel that they are becoming blinkered by conceit.
Complain about this comment
I'm afraid that in this whole matter we only get the "truth" transmitted by the medias and not all the facts so it is a tad hard to make a judgement. I'll try nonetheless.
By hiring Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand,the radio put together two highly volatile components. This was probably meant to attract audiences. I personally found the show sometimes boring and I would simply...listen to another radio channel. Now I admit that these guys went a bit too far. The jokes could have been ok if the person they were address to had been able to answer back. Talking to an answering machine...Was that really fun? Now as far as I know, Mr Sachs didn't kick a big fuss about it. His granddaughter did, but her complains were hard to be taken seriously when you hear that she 1) had really slept with Mr Brand ( who needed to know that?- so far anybody could have assumed it was a joke and not a reality) 2) that she was distressed about the whole thing ( who could ever believe that? One she slept with Brand, not the best way to keep a low profile and then she's in a show called " The satanic sluts", hardly discreet or elegant again).
Finally Brand quits - if it doesn't show he's sorry, what would? The guy is losing a serious paycheck here in these days of credit crunch-, a big shot quits and Ross is suspended. This looks like a witch hunt. These guys and gal should have simply apologize and the BBC should have let the public know that they were now aware that some boundaries had been set. I believe that anyone deserve a second chance and that the whole matter has been blown up out of proportion, which is sad. The BBC so far has shown the world that they were never afraid of breaking taboos or going behind the curtains. That's what makes their success. The fact that they give in so easily to public pressure is very sad.
I regret that Mr Sachs had to listen to the prank phone calls. But the whole thing should have been between him and Ross and Brand. The fact that we had to listen to it....was purely our choice. In my case I turned it off after two minutes. But if Brand or Ross are doing a show on tv or on air again, I will listen- unless I don't like it. But I hope we won't give up on them so easily.
Complain about this comment
What a load of old rubbish!
Typical of the newspaper media making far more of this than neccessary. It's amazing they can drag such a non-story out over the front pages of the tabloid press for 5 days straight.
They've said sorry
Sachs has accepted it
The granddaughter has had her 5 minutes of fame.
Get over it!
If there had been anyother news this would have possibly made page 5
Complain about this comment
If Jonathan Ross is such a good presenter, PM today, then he doesn't deserve to work again for the BBC in the New Year - if he was so good he should have calmed RB down and smoothed things down, not aided and abbetted this appalling schoolboy prank.
Complain about this comment
I was really disappointed in the way that Jonathan Ross behaved and thought at the time that the action taken as a result was appropriate. But now Sat morning is here and as I work most Saturdays between 10-1, I always have him and Andy on and it's part of my life. I understand the decision to suspend him - but to not mention him at all this morning and then replace him with the perfectly competent but anodyne Richard Allinson just highlights how much the BBC - and us -would miss him if he were not to return. It makes me sad and I won't be listening again on a Saturday until he comes back.
Complain about this comment
I have just joined you bloggers for the first time and I have been so incensed by this affair that I have to write my thoughts. I was once an an avid R 4 listener alone, havinf grown too old for Radio1 until I discovered in the 90's that the BBC had started to drag Radio 2 out of the mire of trite, dull broadcasting and as time went on they managed to reasonably quietly peel away at some of the tired old DJ's who were so complacent they believed they would die of old age at the desk. ( Jimmy Young!) I only listened to Radio 4 to avoid a few remaining (Steve Wright and the terrible organ man)
I am not an adoring fan of J Ross or Russell Brand but I was at least alert on Sat mornings, it was entertaing and fun, sometimes silly, he was arrogant and needed pulling down a peg or two as he talked over his guests. My children would download Russell Brand onto the iplayer so they could listen in the car and I found myself laughing out load at times, a very rare thing for me, the only other comedy radio programme that does that for me is the News Quiz.
Russell Brand IS, by the way, a comedian!
A comment from a school headmaster to the PM programme on R 4 made me want to write. His view is that the prank played out by the two of them was tantemount to bullying, an unpleasant part of school life today, carried out often by texts and messages and that allowing the offence to go unpunished, gives a very poor example to young people. My view is that yes, I agree, they needed to be reprimanded, eg. work WITHOUT pay for a while and give their wages to a charity. BUT talk about giving in to bullying!! What is the matter with you, where is your backbone?!? We are the vast majority, mostly quiet listeners who trust the BBC to stand up on our behalf, against the bullies in the shape of Rupert Murdoch and his crowd pulling headlines, baying for blood at any cost! I am a huge fan of the BBC, radio and TV but am deeply saddened by your reaction to this affair. Removing ( I Know, she resigned, yeh, whatever!) a valuable and enterprising producer to leave us, exactly where with radio 2? well me, anyway wandering around trying to find entertainment, quality, comedy combined with good music. OH well here I go, back to Radio 4 and wait another 10 years for the BBC to wake up to the realisation that they need to keep a station ready for the present Radio 1 listeners to hook onto, as I did a few years ago. I am 58 now, it is not only the young who want vibrant and up to date broadcasting.
Complain about this comment
Why has Jonathan Ross not been sacked? It is disgraceful that he is still an employee of the BBC, his behaviour has heaped embarrassment and humiliation on his employer, his colleagues and the general population who are obliged BY LAW to pay his salary in the guise of the licence fee.
The lewd, inappropriate and crude output of the BBC is shameful - the BBC programme "Coming of Age" aired last Tuesday was base and coarsening, the loose cop-out that it was intended for teenagers laughable.
Shame on you!
Complain about this comment
SSC 91, You misspelled 'sweat'.
Complain about this comment
113
Well said, babsnut!
PS (I'm 58 too)
Complain about this comment
The BBC has gone overboard well and truly, agreed it went to far and an apology was needed but the duo can't take total blame for the humiliation imposed on the family, they just touched the surface Georgina has done the rest all by herself, give her some credit
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
l83 117, Did you forget something?
Complain about this comment
So, the weak willed BBC Trust has decided against any further action against Jonathon Ross. So now we can expect more smirking, infantile humour, foul language and, lavatorial content on both radio and television. He should have been sacked regardless of the outstanding contract monies due.
When will the Trust wake up to the fact that the BBC is public funded broadcasting and is not in competition with other channels for advertising revenue and, that the so called ratings war is in the heads of of BBC management, etc, not the viewing/listening public.
Let Ross go to a commercial channel and take his dumbed down, illiterate audience with him. That could only benefit the BBC.
Complain about this comment
It is now many months since Ross refused to resign. Myself and many of my frienmds can't bear to look at the man or even hear him on the radio - we quickly switch channels whenever his pseudo-Hawwow voice comes on.
When I think that it was a respectable grandmother who had to listen on her answer machine to those unforgiveable comments on. . . where i come from it is not considered subtle comedy to boast of sleeping with someone's grandchild. It is as far away from 'funny' as it is possible to get.
Hopefully, now, the BBC are getting their come-uppance for their refusal to sack him, by having their share of the license fee slashed.
I believe, ultimately, that not only will the Public no longer be forced to fund these objectionable overpaid con-men but the very idea of being forced to pay the BBC to receive any tv signal whatever, will be consigned to the dustbin
If it were reported that the Iranian government forced its population by threat of imprisonment to fund a state tv service we would all be horrified.
Jonathan Ross is simply a manifestation of this outrage.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS