Open and shut case?
| 11:24 UK time, Wednesday, 29 October 2008
Ten thousand complaints and rising. Questions in the House from outraged MPs. Gordon Brown calls it "inappropriate and unacceptable". BBC radio boss Tim Davie apologises unreservedly and uses the "unacceptable" word too. Ofcom and the BBC Trust circle menacingly. And the woman at the centre of it all, Georgina Baillie, reportedly tells the Sun she wants them sacked.
You'll have your own views about what Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross did during that prank call to actor Andrew Sachs.
But if you thought the British public believe it's an open and shut case against the Radio 2 pair, maybe it's time for a rethink.
Audiences across the BBC are responding in very different ways. My colleagues on Radio 4, 5Live, in television and the World Service are reporting, broadly speaking, condemnation. Younger audiences are saying something different in our experience.
The first clue came when we started reporting the story on Monday and we noted an unusually silent response from Radio 1's 10.5 million listeners. As the story grew, splashed on the tabloids and featuring prominently in many of the broadsheets -a response began. But a different one.
"Get over it: a fuss about nothing," was typical. Some listeners texted in to point out that Ross and Brand were there to appeal to younger audiences with edgy humour. Not every gag by alternative comics hits the mark, does it? Errors of judgement are surely not a sacking offence? And anyway it was funny, wasn't it?
So the media storm grows. There's anger: some genuine, some of it synthetic. Some of it comes from the BBC's usual critics. For media folk profile and salary-envy and schaedenfreude may play a part in all this. But how many heard the original transmission and how many are responding to the newspapers' quotes or others' arguments? I'm not here to defend or attack anyone - but there is an alternative view we are seeing strongly expressed by our young audience which is certainly worth wider consideration.
The prime minister's intervention amazed some listeners: "The financial markets are wrecked and all he can do is talk about a petty joke." Also: "Everybody needs to calm down"; "Anybody who thinks it's disgusting should get a grip"; "Why should they be punished? This is the normal chit-chat of a man"; "It was funny, a joke. People are so boring"; "Leave Russell alone"; "Russell is hilarious"; "Jonathan Ross is a great presenter"; "Hey, they are comedians - it's their job". And the favourite phrase: "It's been blown out of all proportion."
When we started covering the story on Newsbeat - the audience response was running two-to-one in Ross's and Brand's favour - now it's swelled to six-to-one. David Sillito's excellent piece on the News at Ten on Tuesday illustrated this with a "vox pop" of older and younger audiences to BBC shows.
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
Very different views, as reflected by Radio 1's audience.
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
Still an open and shut case?
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Rod, I'm not your biggest fan - but thank goodness someone is giving an alternative view on this story. The Daily Mail hype on this story is overblown to the point where neither of these guys can get a 'fair hearing'. I don't approve of what they did [only hearing it afterwards].
But Brand himself did a good show when he was interviewing Oliver Stone, although this has just not been mentioned in the paper.
And the fatuous attempt by the Mail to drive traffic to their website by reporting on the lady in question, on the same day we read about shorter sentences for the murderers of two goths is an irony not lost on all of us.
To be honest, I would be more offended if I got phone messages from Alan Titchmarsh left on my voice-mail.
The BBC cannot be a bastion of middle-class dullness and wall to wall Alan Titchmarch - we might as well all go and run off Beachy Head if things ever got that 'safe' on the Beeb..
The key thing here is that the show itself can be as risque as they like - people can switch off. Mr Sachs didn't have a choice to receive those messages on his ansafone, and that was wrong - but a public lynch mob is not the answer.
Complain about this comment
The ACTUAL 'crime' committed by Ross & Brand was fairly minor, however its not a million miles away from happy-slapping a pensioner and putting it on Youtube. Andrew Sachs was upset by it and his distress is apparently considered entertainment by two clowns who are grotesquely overpaid by the public.
Brand and Ross's big mistake seems to have been that Andrew Sachs is actually very popular with the public. Sadly I suspect that if they'd picked on someone less popular they'd have got away with it.
The fact that this material was apparently pre-approved by the BBC means that the BBC now have no moral highground when it comes to criticising anti-social behaviour. Its terrible if some hoodies make threatening phone calls to an OAP but O.K is someone on 6 million a year does it?
I'm 31 and listen to Radio 1 out of choice. Do I count as one of your younger listeners? Its also worth pointing out that Chris Moyles this morning refused to discuss the incident apparently under orders from higher up.
Complain about this comment
A massive right wing media led assassination of the BBC, presumably in retaliation for giving the Osbourne story so much prominence last week.
Rod, I'd like to believe that not just this 30-something listener of Radio 1 has a common sense approach to this whole affair but many others as well.
I'm glad that the BBC has edgy talent that is not necessarily 'safe'. Leave the comfortable slippers brigade to the Sunday evening slot on ITV.
Fact is that only a tiny proportion of the population listened to the broadcast and those that were listening no doubt enjoyed and appreciated the humour involved.
Today's decision to suspend Brand and Ross is grossly offensive to the massive amount of younger license fee payers who don't believe that the great age of comedy ended with Alf Garnett.
Complain about this comment
Comedians they may be, but in Scotland when we refer to someone as a comedian it usually means something different from the meaning in the Oxford dictionary. Leaving obscene messages on a 78 year old's answering machine is not funny, it is bullying of the worst kind, and it is an infringement of the man in question's right to privacy. Both Ross and Brand should have their contracts terminated and should be offered no further employment with what is a National corporation. Tim Davie as the person ultimately responsible should also have his employment terminated. The assertion that this type of behaviour is acceptable in todays society is probably one of the reasons why a proportion of today's youth ( not by any means a lot, but enough ) have grown up with no regard for the property or rights of their fellow human beings.It is wrong for anyone in authority at the BBC to condone or attempt to justify the continued employment of these two disgracefully behaved young men who themselves would be first to complain if the same sort of infringement of their rights had been perpetrated. The BBC hiearchy , who, at the end of the day are paid by the taxpayer, (not by the fashionable few who see Brand and Ross as folk heroes ) should now demonstrate to all thse employed on the taxpayer's behalf that their behaviour must be of an acceptable standard and that they are not indispensible.
Complain about this comment
This is of course a complete over reaction from the BBC, spurred on by the press (who are only interested in forcing a newsworthy outcome if at all possible) and politicians desperate to distract us from their own embarrassing errors of judgement....of which there are many. In the week after the broadcast, the BBC received 2 complaints, and that is about all it is worth. Leave the regulator to decide on the punishment and allow Ross and Brand to continue to do what they do best, entertaining the nation. They are highly talented entertainers and now we must all suffer their loss because of a politically correct minority and a BBC management worried about the licence fee.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The issue here is that two grown men have acted in a morally disgraceful way. It's not funny to phone someone up and swear and boast about a sexual act with that person's grandchild no matter who they are. It's not funny to do this on a radio show where other impressionable people are listening. I'm all for edgy, pushing irreverent, humour such as that on programmes such as Mock the Week, but this was downright disgusting and not funny. No wonder that our younger people struggle to find their moral compass in our society when two such high profile figures, one old enough to be a grandfather himself, set this example.
As a BBC Licence fee payer, how do I go about reclaiming the portion that pays these two irresponsible's inflated salary's?
They should go.
Complain about this comment
"Still an open and shut case?"
Yes
It's a sad commentary on the world we live in that so many of the Radio 1 audience apparently don't give a toss about other people's feelings and sensibilities.
It was wrong and if the average Radio 1 listener doesn't understand that they need some education.
Complain about this comment
Young people, men in particular, frequently brag about sexual conquests. What they often learn is that they cause distress and lose respect by doing so.
Bragging about it very publicly to a relative has an element of cruelty and persecution about it and in this instance does appear to have caused some genuine distress.
It is worth reading (and watching) what Georgina Baillie has to say on this.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1867800.ece
Phone stunts are a staple of youth orientated radio shows nowadays, inevitably there is pressure to outdo each other. I think this is really a matter of setting boundaries as to what is acceptable?
Some found it funny; then again some would find any situation where pain and humiliation is inflicted on others funny. Others see it as edgy humour that misfired; in other words it didn`t work. But it comes down to consequences and responsibilities. Is the BBC willing to set boundaries as to what is and isn`t acceptable? In many ways that is the subtext of this debate about a wider context.
Complain about this comment
What makes me laugh is the how the number of complaints have risen to drastically.
Hardly anybody would have heard it first hand, so presumably they have deliberately sought it out listened to it and then complained.
Same as people, who watch TV and the complain. Turn it off or turn it over and stop moaning!
Complain about this comment
I think it is a pretty open and shut case...
After the BBC did their investigation, they came to an acceptable decision.
Complain about this comment
I can not believe all the hype surrounding this, and the fact that Ross and Brand have now been suspended is a bigger outrage than the original joke.
It's clear to see that it was just a joke and an apology by each on their respective programmes should have been enough. If people were 6-1 in favour of Brand and Ross then why on earth have they been suspended.
Complain about this comment
Apparently repeating what was said on a certain BBC radio show by certain BBC DJ about certain instructions he recieved from the BBC high command this morning has lead to my comment #2 vanishing off to mod-land.
I think this rather proves my point about the BBC's lack of response. That or the fact that a 31 year old Radio 1 listener who thinks Brand and Ross are grossly overpaid and deserve every bit of flack they're getting is perhaps upsetting your 6:1 ratio?
Complain about this comment
Yes, I think it is right to suspend them. Their apologies seemed far from genuine, and had a member of the public or an employee of any other company committed a similar act they would have been sacked and or arrested.
However, little point if they are to be suspended at full pay and also a pointless task to fine the BBC: this just results in the public fee payer ultimately paying the price for their arrogant and juvenile behaviour.
Complain about this comment
Your Director General seems to think it's an open and shut case. He's just popped up from his holiday hideout and suspended them both. Argue the matter with him.
Complain about this comment
Come on BBC get some backbone. If anyone should be suspended then it should be the people responsible for allowing the infamous sketch to be broadcast.
When famous actors swear in out take shows no one complains because it was edited out.
Dont pick on the talent - stand up for them and how much someone gets paid is irrelevent. I'm sure a few people at ITV and Five get paid loads but i still find most of their broadcast material offensive. Lets not even mention the daily mail, i have to watch my blood pressure.
Complain about this comment
It's sad that our younger listeners don't see what was wrong with this.
It was rude, bullying and, most importantly, unfunny.
It turns out that Russell Brand and the young lady did have a relationship (her statement) in 2006.
Russell was simply revealing something about his involvment with Mr Sach's grand daughter that no reasonable man would tell an ex-girlfriend's grandfather or, indeed, anybody else at all.
As I say, I am surprised they can't see this.
It shows a distinct inability to empathise and I wonder how the comments/opinions are split between male and females? I can't imagine many girls would want details of their lovelife broadcast within their social circle let alone to the nation.
Complain about this comment
To respond to "Turn it off or turn it over and stop moaning!" (Lookupsport 12:25pm on 29 Oct)
You've missed the point - it's one thing to have rude humour on a show where everyone is participating willingly. It's not my taste, but I'll let it pass.
It's another to insult and humiliate someone like this who's done nothing to deserve it. That's what I object to, and that's worthy of a complaint.
Other people are human too, with all the same feelings and emotions you have. That's worth remembering sometimes.
Complain about this comment
The BBC has gone OTT with this story! Just drop it. The country is in the grip of financial crisis and recession, home reposessions are up 70% and the BBC's top story is about Russell Brand and J. Ross!
This is not newsworthy, Sachs complained and the complaint should have been dealt with within the BBC and between the presenters, Mr Sachs and the BBC. A public apology and thats that.
Give it a rest, there is more important stuff happening.
Complain about this comment
This is just a diversion.
Two complaints before the anti-BBC press got on their collective high horses.
And what have we missed in the meantime?
Oh, yes, Ofcom has just slammed Sky for broadcasting 2,500 - yes TWO AND A HALF THOUSAND - illegal messages again Virgin Media.
OVER TWENTY HOURS OF ILLEGAL BROADCASTS FROM SKY - interest from The Sun and The Times = NIL.
Ten minutes of comedy on the radio = massive stink from the press.
And if you don't like Brand or Ross, don't listen. Simple as.
No one has a right NOT to be insulted.
Complain about this comment
What to show in place of "Friday Night With Jonathan Ross"? Simple - "Fawlty Towers".
Complain about this comment
I think you're missing the point. I have no problem with Brand and Ross behaving like obnoxious 5-year-olds in their own radio programmes if they want to. Their listeners know what to expect, and anyone who is offended by their particular variety of "humour" doesn't need to tune in.
In this case, however, they left grossly offensive messages on Andrew Sachs's answering machine. Sachs has every right to be offended and upset: he didn't choose to receive the messages, they were imposed on him. The fact that this was broadcast on BBC Radio is unfortunate, but not really the point.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't leaving obscene messages illegal? I doubt Sachs will choose to press charges, but even so, I think Brand and Ross's behaviour is absolutely disgraceful, and in most situations would be a sacking offence. It is a sad comment on the extent to which the BBC has bought into the cult of celebrity that they haven't yet been sacked. Let's hope that their suspension is just the first step towards that outcome.
Complain about this comment
6:1 ratio in favour of Brand and Ross. Really? Perhaps you should look at the most recommended comments on Have Your Say if you want a different perspective on the audience reaction.
Complain about this comment
There is no excuse on Earth that justifies the comments made by Ross and Brand on Andrew Sachs' answer phone. I don't understand why anyone thinks it is OK for Russell Brand to use his position as a radio broadcaster to make a personal attack on someone. It is not cutting edge comedy but pathetic playground bully-boy behavior. However, the broadcasters are the real culprits in this furore. They had several days in which to make a supposedly educated decision as to whether to edit the prank calls. They are not 'fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants' comedians and should have had the sense to remove the segment from the show and ensure that Ross and Brand made a private apology to Both Sachs and his granddaughter. None of this need ever have reached the public arena and someone in that production team, if not higher, should be held responsible. Brand and Ross have damaged their reputation enough anyway.
Complain about this comment
both ross and brand are presenters not comics there concept of humour has been done in and around clubs for years and to be honest they are not very good at it.
they should be dealt with only becouse they are a disgrace to the bbc and offended so many.
having seen the transcript i am in total agreement they should be suspended unpaid untill its fully looked into.
if guilty then its up to the management of the bbc to proportion blame and remove or chastise those at fault.
bland brand himself could end up presenting songs of praise as pennance whilst getting humour lessons from true comics.
ross needs to learn how to review movies as his reviews of late are very biased as if he has been paid off, his film show has been a flop over the past few years.
his friday night show can be dropped in favour of a blank screen it would be more interesting.
these pair are just the latest of these celeb types that have fallen foul of companies and the public it seems there is an increase in these fools being hired by inept management of media companies.
Complain about this comment
It is ridiculous over-sensationalism. Why on earth did our Prime Minister think it important enough to comment upon.
Good God Britain, what are we coming to when two men (who have apologised) are being demonised for a stupid prank what on earth are we going to do next.
Complain about this comment
If young people think such foul and tasteless behaviour is acceptable, I suggest it's because their sense of decency has been warped by too much exposure to the likes of Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross.
By the way, I'm 22. Is that young enough to have an opinion on this? Or do you prefer to take your editorial guidance from 12-year-olds?
Complain about this comment
Defending Ross and Brand on the grounds of freedom of speech is just wrong. As scriptwriters know, there is no such thing as freedom of speech at the BBC - not in the Drama department, at any rate. Ross and Brand deserve condemnation, not only because of their crass and stupid stunt but because they are symptomatic of a broader problem. The BBC has been stupid to invest so much in a handful of variable talents. The corporation has helped to create the inanities of today's celebrity culture. Any editorial system that works on the basis of celebrities can do no wrong and other creatives must be muzzled has been sleepwalking towards disaster for some time. This is no longer merely a question of 'taste' or 'censorship'. The reaction of the public strongly suggests that the licence fee payers - the consumers - are tired of being treated with contempt by programme-makers and commissioning editors. It's time for a radical rethink of how the BBC works, how it sees itself and how it is managed.
Complain about this comment
#9, I absolutely agree. Frankly I think this says more about the audience of Radio 1, a station which has pitched itself to the sort of callow, shallow, skinny-jeaned 'yoof' who have little regard for appropriate behaviour provided they get their 'fix' of entertainment, usually at another's expense. I'm just sad to see the once-excellent Radio 2 - an alternative for those of all ages to the rubbish being churned out on R1 - now doggedly following its teen-oriented stable-mate into the gutter.
The fact remains that this was not only offensive and yes, a form of bullying, but most likely illegal. Last I heard it was still an offence in this country to phone an effective stranger unannounced and use abusive and sexually degrading language, whether to their face or to a voicemail recorder. Brand and Ross are lucky they're not being prosecuted over this.
And this blog post smacks of typical Beeb self-satisfaction; attacking those who disagree with you in order to undermine and marginalise their legitimate concerns. This is absolutely not why I pay the license fee, and quite frankly i resent it being used in such a manner when the quality of your reportage of the major social issues that will come to affect us all (see my comments about obesity on another thread) seems to be rapidly declining.
Frankly I'm glad this is now being discussed in the corridors of power. I think the mainstream media has become puerile in its attempts to appeal to the lowest common denominator and increasingly bereft of creativity or any sort of system of checks or balances on content. I don't often agree with David Cameron but I think he's right in saying that this should trigger a debate about the role of the media, why 'standards' and 'taste' have become dirty words and whether the media should be trying to enrich and benefit society or acting as an irresponsibly negative and disruptive influence upon it.
Unfortunately I think that, going on past cases such as that of Richard Bacon, it is more likely that there will be an on-air apology tucked away at 3am, a token fine (payable from license revenues) and even if those involved are sacked, the 'controversy' will increase their notoriety and hence their marketability to other broadcasters. The whole thing will be quickly forgotten, and not one thing will change.
Complain about this comment
It's all just typical of this country - there is always an uproar about something, we love nothing more than complaining. I feel like everyone is just jumping on the bandwagon. Thousands of bored middle aged, middle class people looking for someone else to blame for something. I think they should all get a life and maybe focus their energy on something worthwhile like charity work.
I am a fan of Jonathan Ross, and I would be very sorry to see him sacked for this. I really don't think it would be fair to end someone's (very successful) career for one mistake.
Complain about this comment
No body complained for a week before the Daily Mail started banging their drum and then people who hadn't even heard the programme complained.
I totally agree – why is this leading the news?
Complain about this comment
Oh, and another thing:
"Errors of judgement are surely not a sacking offence?"
Well, it's true that we all make errors of judgement from time to time. But it's equally true that we don't all have seven digit salaries. When you're paying someone that much money, you have every right to expect their judgement to be flawless, not for them to behave like a total git.
Sack the pair of them.
Complain about this comment
A lot of fuss about nothing, much more of a non-story than the Osborne story last week.
I'm no great fan of either but I don't think they should have been suspended.
It has also become a political football and used now by both parties to have a go at the beeb.
As for the Mail, well they don't have any hidden agenda in this affair now do they.
I really depair at the flog 'em attitude that many are showing on this minor story, many celebrities have done a lot worse things than this but don't seem to get the same totally out of proportion reaction.
Get a life people and get over yourselves.
Complain about this comment
It would be a very sad day if the BBC responded to tabloid pressure and lose the talent of Ross and Brand.
A handful of people may have not liked it but the thousands responding now are simply voting against salary payments.
To put it simply if you pay peanuts you get monkeys. Talent like Ross and Brand should not come cheap and they deserve their salary and more. People are simply voting about salary and not the remarks made.
Gordon Brown should get a grip it may be tthe BBC but it has nothing to do with him. He should concntrate on losing the next election or having the courage to call one.
Its just another example of political correctness gone mad.
For the record what does the grandaughter do, good bit of publicity for her that I'm sure she is enjoying.
GET OVER IT.
Complain about this comment
Sigh. Yet again the Editors Blog is used as a vehicle to make pathetic excuses to justify the increasingly poor standards to which the BBC is sinking. It doesn't do you any favours trying to make excuses or saying "it wasn't that bad really".
Perhaps you should ask your colleague Rory Cellan-Jones how to write a blog when you've screwed up. In one of his recent blogs (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technology/2008/10/an_apologyin_fact_several.html), he owned up to having got some things wrong. Good for him. Rory's blog deserves our respect. This blog only deserves our contempt.
Complain about this comment
As a 'younger' radio1 listening member of the public I would suggest that Brand and Ross were not funny but quite offensive. I can imagine how my grandparents would feel if they were on the receiving end of such bullying. Ross is never funny - just rude and arrogant and how he has come to command such status within the BBC is beyond me. Brand can be amusing but has really overstepped the mark on this occasion. Suspension (presumably on full pay) is not enough - they should both go!
Complain about this comment
The BBC and BBC Trust have some explaining to do over the Mandelson-Corfu affair. This popular diversion will not get in the way of a proper process that must be entered into in order to rid the BBC of its bias and a proper investigation of its campaign against the George Osborne.
Complain about this comment
As #23. It doesn't really matter what anyone's audience thinks. The fact is that two people paid an incredibly large amount of money on the basis of their quality somehow thought it'd be a good idea to harass an old man on his answerphone, something that is not only quite pathetic but also against the law: section 43 of the 1984 Telecommunications Act states:
"A person who—
(a)
sends, by means of a public telecommunication system, a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
(b)
sends by those means, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, a message that he knows to be false or persistently makes use for that purpose of a public telecommunication system,
shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to [F1 imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both].
If this was anyone other than Brand, Ross or Moyles then they would be out on their ear in short order but for some reason the BBC superstars get carte blanche to break the law on air and get away with it.
Off with their heads.
Complain about this comment
Thank goodness there are sensible views like this being expressed.
Yes, Brand and Ross' joke was in bad taste. They took it too far. And it probably shouldn't've been broadcast either. But a proper apology should've sufficed.
To echo all those with common sense, this has indeed been blown out of all proportion, no doubt thanks to few other interesting news stories and residual hatred for Ross' huge salary. Has anyone been watching the ITV lunchtime news? Alastair Stewart has been taking his usual ham-fisted over-sensational glee in reporting. Never knowingly a good journalist, that man.
Their suspension is ludicrous and I hope they're reinstated soon.
Incidentally, I have precisely 0 sympathy for Sachs' granddaughter, who appears to be using it to further her career... whatever her career is.
Complain about this comment
Oh, and also, it's not really fair complaining about "secondary" complainants - of course the people who think phoning people up and being abusive to them don't listen to Brand, Ross or Moyles - that doesn't mean they can't be deeply disappointed in the BBC for letting them get away with it.
Complain about this comment
#28:
Great post! If the Beeb are taking their decisions based on the views of 12 year olds, that certainly explains a lot.
Complain about this comment
Yes, it's an open and shut case. Illegal, offensive, gratuitiously obscene and anti-social behaviour, contrary to to a whole raft of guidelines and rule that the BBC usually boasts about adhering to ... how much more "open and shut" do you want???
The fact that a generation of younger listeners and viewers, groomed by the likes of Ross and Brand into thinking that this kind of behaviour is "normal", can't now see the problem, shows just how damaging - just how much of a public DIS-service - their influence over the years has been.
Complain about this comment
I think this has been blown out of proportion and the wrong people are taking the blame.
Ross and Brand are paid to do a job and hopefully are given guidelines.
The outline of the content should have been agreed before recording commenced.
In stunts like this it is unusual to actually leave the messages on the real answerphone.
The producer was in control of the recording and could/should have pulled the plug as soon as guidelines were breached.
Post production review should have blocked transmission if it broke guidelines.
Most complaints come from people who didn't even hear the original broadcast.
If anyone is going to be sacked then it is those that allow this to be produced and broadcast not those who are paid to push the boundaries of acceptability.
And before you ask I'm not a member of the young target audience of these shows I'm 56 and happen to think that these two are providing entertainment for millions not just the few who complain.
Complain about this comment
Don't you think it's just a little bit ironic that you think it's OK for Brand and Ross to use the kind of language they did on air, but my post to Have Your Say was rejected, presumably on the grounds that the word I used to describe them (scumbags) was offensive?
Complain about this comment
@ reply #30 (Richie79) – the audience of Radio 1 know there are much more important things going on that it needs to be informed about.
It is as simple as that.
Complain about this comment
This illustrates clearly the reason why the licence fee is no longer defneible. If the writer is so lacking in taste that he can defend this appalling conduct then he is not fit to be employed by the BBC.
Had I done something like this I would expect to be sacked forthwith. In fact, I doubt if I would have finished the day in post. And quite right too.
It was, and is, unacceptable. How do I apply for a refund of my licence fee?
Complain about this comment
This does seem to be getting out of hand. E4's Fonejacker does much the same thing, without comment from the thousands of people who are supposedly exercised about this. Victor Lewis Smith's Channel 4 programme featured bogus calls to celebrities - phoning Derek Nimmo to say the Queen Mother had died, phoning Hughie Green to ask if he'd had sex with Lena Zavaroni. Those shows were offensive, but where was the backlash? I think some people simply don't care for Brand and Ross and their incomes. Now that Gordon Brown has weighed in on the crisis, we wait for a pronouncement from Mr Obama and Mr McCain.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Two observations:
a. some (perhaps many) of us have complained not just about the broadcast of the Brand/Ross calls but also (and more) about the BBC's response to them. That response (if one is generous and calls a late apology and a retreat to the bunkers a "response") was a gift to those who would like to end the BBC's special status;
b. if young(ish) people favoured the broadcast of Brand/Ross "happy slapping" Neil Kinnock and stealing his wallet would that make it OK?
And one "money where your mouth is" question. Would Mr McKenize care to put his private tel. no. on the blog so we can all leave him some funny messages?
Complain about this comment
I believe that the reason this has become top news would have something to do with the fact that some basic moral values have been trampled by two individuals who are paid ridiculous amounts of money for their dubious talents. This is money handed over in good faith by the general public. MONEY! It goes to the root of all our worries and concerns with the current financial climate and it grates just that little bit more when people, who will be untouched by the unmentionable recession, can behave in such a disrespectful manner. That would be disrespectful to those individuals who collectively pay their salaries.
When you have paid a raft of bills for at least 20 years and raised a couple of decent human beings, then and only then will you have the experience to make a judgement on issues like this. I wonder how old the production team on this show are...
Complain about this comment
Mr Mackensie
Over 40 years ago I worked in a weekend job at Heathrow with Mac (Ian MacKlennan) of the Small Faces (who was recently on the Johnathan Ross R2 Saturday show when Ross was on holiday.) before he and his mate Rod "the oldest paper boy in Greenford" Stewart got famous.
Mac without fear stood up for another lowly worker who was called a "Spastic" by the son of the senior manager were we worked.
It is a great shame that the values Mac (and Rod) espouse have not been taken up by modern teen "idols".
Complain about this comment
"And if you don't like Brand or Ross, don't listen. Simple as."
- True - but I still have to pay for them and that's what I object to.
Put them on commercial radio where they belong then those who want to listen to them can and those of us who object to their puerile humour don't have to pay their wages. It's a win-win situation, which means that it will get ignored!
Complain about this comment
Rod, you so miss the point. For the £3,700,000,000 you relaxed lot at the BBC get we the tax payers demand a highly moral level of behaviour. Encouraging high standards not pushing them them down. If you don't understand I think you should go work in the real economy where pay is lower, pensions have been crushed and upsetting customers gets you fired.
Complain about this comment
Oh dear, Rod. If you are representative of the level of policital savvy of the BBC management, I really do fear for the future of public broadcasting in the UK.
I really hope for your sake you posted your blog BEFORE the two guys in question had been suspended. Otherwise your big boss is gonna be, well, cheesed off with you, shall we say!
I am 26, just in case you think I must be a geriatric Tory from Tunbridge Wells because I am not buying into your view of the world.
Which brings me to the point, finally - the issue is not whether it is an open or shut case, or what you or I or anyone else thinks of this or of the two men involved.
The issue is that what has transpired has caused serious problems for your employer, that a legal view may be that it is unlawful, and that I felt real anger when I read your blog.
I was angry because it could have been my grandfather, it could have been me or my sister getting a phone call from a radio prankster and being publicly humiliated.
The point that I have not seen anyone else make is that this could happen to anyone, given the right circumstances. If it is OK for the BBC to do this to whatever his name is and his granddaughter, it is OK for the BBC to do it to anyone.
So tell me, Rod, is it OK to do it to anyone?
Complain about this comment
from 'krankzinnig':
why should listeners to Radio 2, perceived as 'fuddy duddy' by their counterparts on, for example, Radio 1, take some the flak over this event, they are not the perpetrators? In the first place they are more likely to be licence payers and therefore have a stake in what is broadcast. Secondly, it is premature for anyone to call for heads to roll, so let's take a step back from this and patiently await notice of what action the DG intends to take. Then, and only then, will it be appropriate for people to air their views on the matter and, if necessary, take sides.
Complain about this comment
Radio 2 is not Russell Brand's natural home. My dislike of his broadcasts is inflamed by his shrill tones taking the place of a pefectly good music programe that used to run on Radio 2 on a Saturday night. If Radio 1 listeners like him so much, (and if he is allowed back), cut his salary, provide him with a chaperone and reschedule his progrmme so he can twitter away to his heart's content to people who get his " cutting edge humour".
Complain about this comment
Fundamentally whats the difference between Brand & Ross leaving offensive messages on a 78 year old man's answer phone and happy-slapping on youtube? In both cases it would seem that someone elses distress is considered entertainment.
Last month I had some kids throw a brick through my car windscreen 'for a laugh' (their words to the police- they were too young to prosecute and told the cop as much). I wasn't laughing and neither it seems is Sachs.
Perhaps this attitude: by 'entertainers' earning more in a week than I earn in a year explain why kids think mindless, distressing acts are acceptable.
Complain about this comment
The british public (paragraph 3) in a vox pop would bring back hanging, would want to know the addresses of felons, would not pay so much tax but have better services;
The Radio 2 audience has been demographically changed over the past number of years. The people who used to listen now no longer do.
Your case, Mr McKensie, is that the new audience you want for your show ought to get the presentations they want - regardless of offence to race, creed, age or sensibilities???
I think not. Our country does not legislate against annoyance or disagreement, but we do have laws against offensive behaviour.
Complain about this comment
i cannot understand how some people are saying it was just a bit of fun what is so funny about a women been abused on a radio show and the grandfather been sent the sick texts .lets see how long they laugh when they both lose there jobs over this . i hope they are proud of themselfs and 4 ross i hope his daughters never have there private love lives dragged through the media like that grandfather has
Complain about this comment
I am a regular listener to both Jonathon and Russel's shows. Firstly Russel is in general a resposnible broadcaster but we love him because he is dangerous, unpredictable and risque. Throughout the broadcast in question it is clear (to those who actually listen) that he is shocked by Jon's comments [and it is ros' comments alone that are to blame] and immeiately tries to right the situation. Secondly both of them were under the impression that as the show is not live that they are protected by the systems which regulate all out put from terestrial television. In my opinion it is the complyance department that should be repromanded not two of our foremost entertainers. I am disgusted that we should let these silly boys be hung out to dry while the support struture behind them cower like the cowards they are.
The suspenion is perhaps a fitting punishment for such bad behavoir but it should be extended to the staff who allowed it to happen.
Complain about this comment
If the Brand or Ross had made an offensive racist remark (even if apparently in jest) they would have been, quite rightly, suspended immediately and then fired.
What they said was just offensive as any racist comment and they should suffer the same fate.
Some contributors to this bulletin board though, seem to think that because I did not hear the original Radio 2 programme I have no right to comment. Would they say the same if it had been a racist joke? I think not.
Being cruelly offensive is just as despicable whether it is about race or sex.
Complain about this comment
Couple of things to add to this.
First off; I wouldn't have said that the media has been sensationalising the story thus far: at least no more than they normally do. Considering it is their job to spice things up a little bit I would've said that it's fair enough.
Secondly, to the idea that "young people" could be so easily lead astray is horrendously outdated. As one of these "young people" I feel more insulted by the incinuation that we have no moral compass. Or at least more insulted than I would be if someone pranked me.
What they said/did, in the scheme of things, is no big deal really. It grates me the amount of money we give the BBC to fund these salaries more than what the people do or say. If people think that the main bulk of listeners are naive enough to be persuaded or guided by two comedians (being the operative word) then they need a rethink.
The fact that the "incident" has attracted quite so much interest (Brown etc.) is quite frightening considering the state of the country. Put them next to each other and I know which one worries me more.
As people have said before me: if you do not like something, do not switch on.
Complain about this comment
This is not about the comfortable slippers brigade. Its a about common decency. No I didnt listen to the programme and yes I choose to turn this sort of rubbish off. What it sadly reflects is the younger generation (not all fortunately) have lower moral values. I think Rod McKenzie has got it badly wrong when he talks of jealousy of fat salaries. I think what most people would think is , why would you pay a pair of childish imbeciles like this so much money. It defies common sense.
Complain about this comment
This is not about 'lack of' comedy it is about the law. Opinions may vary but the law applies to all of us and these two have been guilty of a high level of bullying. Perhaps some people don't understand this but I would expect an editor to which is why I am very disappointed in this blog entry.
Check the law on bullying in the workplace (and the definition of bullying), it can be enforced under discrimination or harrassment law and people judged guilty can considered to have performed an act of 'gross misconduct' and be immediatedly dismissed. These two were working, or at least being paid for their time, and so the law should be applied to them. All people have to accept that bullying isn't funny and it isn't clever; and that it can cost them their job.
Complain about this comment
I am absolutely outraged by the level of attention being drawn to this story. I listened to the show a few days after it was broadcast, and although I found the phone calls to be slightly below the belt - they caused no personal offence, and it was not until over a week later that all of a sudden there are thousands of complaints. I find it unbelievable to say the least that these '10,000' or so individuals listened to the show in its entirety, yet took a week to pipe up and note their offence.
There are two issues here - firstly that Brand and Ross made inappropriate comments on a personal answer phone, and secondly that these were later deemed OK to be broadcast on the BBC. As for the former it was undoubtedly wrong - a fact which has been acknowledged by both comedians, who have in turn apologised. However, this incident has been irrationally amplified by the fact that somebody allowed it to be broadcast. If anybody should be sacked over this - it should be them.
I am astonished that Brand and Ross are now being used as scapegoats for this nameless person(s) mistake, a result inevitably of the media storm and witch hunt cooked up by the tabloids. It would highly inappropriate of the Beeb to fire the stars, firstly for somebody else’s misjudgement and secondly because this is exactly the kind of racy humour that the BBC has encouraged and that have produced such large viewing figures. The majority of complainants probably aren’t regular viewers/listeners and would most likely have something to complain about every week if they were.
The only rational conclusion I can come up with is that everybody – the media included – needs this ‘smokescreen’ as a distraction away from the imminent demise of the pound, and our dire economic situation. It is no wonder that Gordon Brown felt the need to comment, as he is the man responsible for the countries worries. Doesn’t he have anything better to be doing, like um I don’t know – running our county into the ground?
As for Sachs’ granddaughter, I fully respect that she wishes to preserve her dignity; however, this is not obtained by working as an erotic dancer in a group called the Satanic Sluts. She has since admitted to sleeping with promiscuous Russell brand and is even ‘considering’ selling her story - hardly the actions of a distressed person. It would seem that if she does not wish to air her dirty laundry in public then maybe she shouldn’t first cast it off onto Russell Brand’s bedroom floor.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I don't think Brand or Ross are funny actually, I find them both decidedly UNfunny.
When young, you have to learn what is appropriate and what is offensive - it's all part of growing up.
It's a pity both of them, especially middle-aged Ross, seem to be a bit stunted and are taking SUCH a long time to grow up.
The very sight of them offends me!!
Complain about this comment
So the young liked it? Well that's all right then isn't it. Perhaps you could tell us what proportion of the licence fee comes from these supporters?
Because you are sheltered from commercial reality you seem to have forgotten that it is by and large not the young who pay your wages, nor the 6m per year for Mr Ross.
Some focus on the reaction from the bulk of the licence fee paying public would be appropriate - and as far as I can see they are rightly disgusted that their money is being abused by a bbc that has completely lost its way.
Not to worry, you will be put out of your misery in the next decade when you will no longer be able to put two fingers up to us schmuck licence fee poll tax paying idiots.
Complain about this comment
I like many others have not listened the programme but that should not stop me and others from complaining about the behaviour of the programme hosts and moreso when we can essentially see what happened was bullying. The argument that complaints from only those who have listened should be taken into account is flawed. Extending this flawed argument would mean that civil protests for varied issues, such as anti-war demostrations for Iraq or anti-GM demonstrations should only be done by people who are in Iraq or Vietnam or whose fields are being used for GM crops?
Brand and Ross should be penalised for such improper behaviour and the fines they pay should not come from my license fee.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
You're missing the point. Both Ross and Brand have a history of using the same offensive material. You only have to look at Brand's live shows to see that he sometimes makes 'prank' calls to the emergency services and Ross has frequently been vulgar and offensive to the people he interviews. What gives either of them the right to act in such a manner? They clearly have no respect for other people and consider themselves above reproach. Does earning a grossly undeserved salary make them oligarchs and above the law? Moreover, I am not one of the BBC's usual critics nor is my objection to Ross and Brand's inexcusable behaviour 'synthetic' as you dub it. There is no justification for their actions. Didn't Ross or anyone during the show think for one moment that what they were doing was going to cause offence or was possibly only 'funny' to a minority? If Ross had any integrity, he would have taken responsibility for their actions and stopped it way before it got so far. As it is, his apology and the extremely late apology by Brand was merely done in an attempt to preserve their bank balance.
Complain about this comment
Just seen that there are a massive amount of posts that are awaiting pre-moderation. Isn't it a pity this wasn't the case with Ross and Brand's contribution?
Complain about this comment
what's this constant obsession with being "edgy"?
there's nothing edgy about not thinking before you open your trap, it's just plain stupid. do it to the wrong person and they knock your teeth out, that kind of stupid.
I'm amazed at how relaxed Andrew Sachs is about the whole thing, showing real dignity where others very obviously have none.
P.S. It's "Schadenfreude", not "schaedenfreude" because:
a) it's a noun (see capitalization of nouns in the German language)
and
b) it's singular - "a", not "ae"
Thanks.
Complain about this comment
People saying 'it was funny' are missing the point, by many miles. The man who sprayed shaving foam on a disabled woman dying in a doorway thought it was funny, so did the crowd of onlookers who egged him on. And every school bully finds an audience ready to laugh as they humiliate their victim. If there is a generational gap revealed ... and the assumption here that Radio 1's audience epitomises all of the young is patently ludicrous, thank god... all the more reason to sack Brand now, because it's appalling and depressing that a segment of society doesn't realise why this broadcast was so offensive. To spell it out: it's because it's bullying and abusive. Not because it's 'edgy' or has naughty words in it. It's no different to teenage yobs yelling abuse at an old lady in the street. Shall we pay them hundreds of thousands of pounds too? Bullying is often funny, if you're too thick to empathise with the victim... but it's always wrong.
Complain about this comment
I thought it was probably overhyped until I listened to the full recording on Youtube and was utterly shocked. Such abuse off radio would be criminal.
It seems Brand has an obsession with boasting to parents and grandparents about his sexual conquests with their offspring (See Rod Stewart fiasco), he's also used the telephone for hoax calls to the police before. He obviously hasn't learnt anything from his past mistakes
If anyone hasn't yet heard it I urge them to. Sack the both of them.
Complain about this comment
And it another thought: it occurs to me that many of your readers may not realise just how tacky Radio One is nowadays. It's truly dreadful. The music is good of course, but check out the invasive inanity of the 'Flirt Alert', or listen to the listeners messages read out, about, for example, how someone so amusingly killed and ate their friend's pet rabbit. Bullying and cruelty is chortled over daily by the merry folk of Radio One, so of course many of their listeners don't see what's wrong with Brand. That's not a reason to defend Brand, that's a reason to give Radio One a thorough spring clean and get all the bullies off the air.
Complain about this comment
Firstly, I can genuinely assure Rod that while I would like to see Ross sacked (although I realise that realistically it won't happen), I am also genuinely 29 years old. However, maybe I'm considered an 'older listener' now.
It's a bit pathetic to whinge 'well younger listeners aren't offended'... firstly I'm a younger listener and I *was* offended (not so much by the comments themselves though they were bad - but the decision to leave the comments on Sachs' voicemail (regardless of whether he had agreed to an interview) which were tantamount to bullying).
Anyway, so what if younger listeners think its OK? Radio 2 caters for a broad church- it isn't just a young persons' station.
Let Brand and Ross do their own independent podcasts away from the Beeb where they can say what they like. Meanwhile let's use this opportunity ro try and claw back a bit of licence fee money from 'stars', please.
Complain about this comment
What Mr Ross and Mr Brand did was offensive and indecent. I see no comedy of any genre.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/tv-radio/sachs-not-surprised-at-suspensions-977804.html
"Sachs 'not surprised' at suspensions
By Tim Moynihan, PA
Wednesday, 29 October 2008
Actor Andrew Sachs today said he was "not surprised" Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand had been suspended by the BBC over their prank calls to him.
And he confirmed he was not planning to take the matter up with the police.
He said the pair had got it "badly wrong" and made a "poor team", but he was not seeking revenge.
Mr Sachs was speaking on his return to his home in Kilburn, north London, just hours after it became known that the pair have been suspended.
Asked his reaction to the news, he said: "I'm not surprised."
Asked if he was going to take the matter up with the police, he said: "I'm not going to take it anywhere, I'm not out for revenge."
Asked if he thought the BBC should have suspended the pair earlier, he said: "I wasn't counting the time, if it happens, it happens. If they are slow on it, it's a problem someone else has to take up."
He said the matter was "very upsetting" not just for himself, but for his wife who is ill in hospital and other members of his family.
"I'm very sorry it happened," he said.
"These things happen, people get things wrong, in this case they got it badly wrong."
Asked about a full transcript of the pair's remarks made public today, he said: "I haven't read the full transcript, but I've heard about some of it and it sounds ghastly.
"How can grown-up, mature people do it? It's a very poor team, the two of them, if that's the result of it."
Asked if he thought the BBC should make an example of them, he said: "That's up to the BBC, I'm neutral about it, I dare say the two of them are shattered, and the director nervous.
"They may recover from it, and be all the better for it."
Asked how he would feel if they were reinstated, he said: "I would have nothing more to say about it. That's up to other people. Whatever happens to them, they don't need me to add to it."
He was asked about confirmation today that his granddaughter had a relationship with Brand.
He said: "She's a grown-up woman, that's her choice, what grandfather tells his granddaughter what to do?"
Asked if he was angry that the pair had not apologised to his granddaughter, he said: "Maybe they have. They haven't that I know of, but they have both apologised to me, sent very nice letters and flowers. I think they should apologise to her."
He confirmed that items from the prank calls to his answer phone had been broadcast on Brand's show on Radio 2 without his approval.
Asked what he thought the affair showed of the BBC, and whether it had deteriorated, he said: "In some ways it's better, there's some very good stuff on. Everybody goes for the extreme these days, for example people use swear words to excess, everything's extreme.""
Complain about this comment
I cannot understand what all the fuss is about... I didn't hear the show, so I have no right to complain, seemingly unlike a large proportion of the public, who quite honestly seem to be more concerned about Jonathan Ross's salary than the sensibilities of the Sachs family. Of course the tabloids are blowing it out of all proportion (no change there then) and taking news space away from important things as usual.
It was a silly prank that went too far. What did they expect when they put together the UK's two most overgrown teenagers it was a disaster waiting to happen.
It appears that Mr Sachs wants all this to go away now, but not much chance of that since his indignant grandaughter has decided to chip in. Sleep with one of the UK's most notorious womanisers and then get all uptight because the fact gets broadcast to the nation and your Grandad. Then what do you do, instead of a quiet digniified no comment, you go to tell the Sun. Tastefull...
I don't want them sacked... As a licence payer they cost me an awful lot and I want every single penny's worth out of them. The blame for all this lies squarely with the idiot who let this be broadcast. He should be the one sacked for not doing his job properly.
Complain about this comment
Sorry, Rod, but saying that Radio 1's teenagers aren't offended, whilst it's the grown up on other channels complaining, doesn't justify the BBC's failure.
Us grown ups pay the licence fee that pays for the BBC - the kids don't. And we don't like seeing our licence fee used to pay large fees to performers who then appear to have broken the law by making abusive calls.
In any other situation where I pay for a service and am upset by the result, I can take my business elsewhere. With the BBC I'm stuck - I'm forced to pay the licence fee tax.
That's why we grown ups are unhappy - we have to pay the BBC despite being offended by what it does with our money.
Complain about this comment
Good to see that the BBC can still ensure a good number of loyal hacks and stooges (rent-a-mob) to put their case across. The cosseted arrogance knows no bounds. Still, it's only the taxpayer paying their massive salaries.
Complain about this comment
Tell you what, if "young people" (just to join you in wild marketing-driven generalisation) like the BBC, Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross so much, let's abolish the licence fee and make the BBC a subscription channel so that its fan demographic can pay for it.
If "young people" or any other artifical "target group" found it amusing to kick an elderly man to death in a park in an ironic way, would you find it necessary to pander to that?
Oh, I know, the reductio ad absurdum is a dirty trick, a low device of ill-disciplined philosophy. Still, reading all of this I know where you stand on the subject of public service broadcasting. You couldn't give a damn about it - you're only interested in your target demographic. Well, the logic is in that case clear. You should be in the commercial sector.
Don't know why I'm bothering to write any of this: the BBC is entirely, perpetually convinced of its own importance, greatness and infallibility. And being as how this is a BBC website, it also has the last
Complain about this comment
There are two serious issues:
1. Why are Ross and Brand paid so much to behave like immature adolescents. Surely they represent very poor value for money in comparison with many other funnier and more creative people.
2. How can we have faith in the judgement of an editoriaal team which permitted this abuse to be broadcast.
Complain about this comment
Sadly if this is what passes as humour at the BBC then it is clear why the comic output on BBC 1-3 over recent years has been so bad!
I have laughed more from watching the news then some BBC comedies!
I think the easiest way to look at the problem is to imagine that the people making the phone call and their victim were not famous - we would have two immature yobs (both old enough to know better) making repeated offensive phone calls to a pensioner.
However, because the victim and the people making the call are famous it is considered comedy?
Perhaps for their next double act Brand and Ross could post hard core porn through the door of an old woman - that would be a riot!
Or how about they do some happy slapping?
Complain about this comment
I am delighted that those two puerile, overpaid idiots have been removed. However, the programme controller should also go. It was his decision to broadcast.
Complain about this comment
I am intrigued to see that Radio One listeners don't see the problem, nor editor Rob Mckenzie. This was an intrusion into the private life of several people with no justification. Radio One is a small proportion of the BBC audience and their opinion/intelligence is of little consequence--- as long as it is obscene it is funny.
What is more concerning is that the BBC ignored the problem, then apologised and have now suspended Ross/Brand---too little too late.
I hope BBC licence fee funding is removed as it is already a biased left wing propaganda tool------------if Sachs had been a moslem it would never have been aired
Complain about this comment
Open and shut case?
Yes!
There were no questions like this asked about other BBC presenters who did recreational drugs in their private time - they were sacked on the spot. These two committed criminal offenses on public radio and on the job!
Let it sink in for a second - a criminal offense is seen as humor these days!
I am surprised that the Police is not investigating the incident as well - even though A. Sachs has not filed any charges and said he will not do so it has been brought to the public attention and should be followed up. They do it with Jo Blogs and his video on YouTube...
Brand and Ross are so called role-models and should act that way. Sorry to think old fashioned, but anybody says things like this about my daughter and I have them for slander to say the least...
Complain about this comment
Your a brave man Rob, this post is being reported as fanning the flames your DG has just tried to put out.
I'd like to comment on all of the above, but I will concentrate on this breathtaking statement:
"Errors of judgement are surely not a sacking offence?"
errors in not following your employers code of conduct and editorial guidance, right at the time your competitors and your regulator has a microscope on your organisation - surely is a sackable offence.
Also, I feel people are becoming fed up to the back teeth of people in public life bringing into disrepute the organisations they work for, and getting off scott free.
We say to ourselves 'God, if I did that at work, there would be hell to pay' and so there should be.
People need to take responsibility for their actions, this event was a serious error. I'll leave my closing statement to your boss, who puts it much better than I could, and than you did:
'It is clear from the views expressed by the public that this broadcast has caused severe offence and I share that view...This gross lapse of taste by the performers and the production team'.
Complain about this comment
"But how many heard the original transmission and how many are responding to the newspapers' quotes or others' arguments?"
So what if we didn't hear it first time? So what if we only found out the FACTS of this matter elsewhere. The FACTS are not in dispute.
1. Russell Brand had sex with Andrew Sachs' granddaughter.
2. Rusell Brand and Jonathan Ross made four OBSCENE phonecalls to the 78 year old's answering machine.
3. These phonecalls were recorded then broadcast.
4. Both were paid license payers' money for doing this.
Why would only those who happened to listen to the show be allowed to feel outrage?
Anyway, what on Earth does the opinion of Radio 1 listeners have to do with the difference between right and wrong? Given that it was a Radio 2 broadcast, you might as well hold up the opinion of Belgians as the gold standard on the matter.
I am not a retired major from the counties, I am a fan of edgy, potentially offensive humour (Bill Hicks, Frankie Boyle, etc.)
Complain about this comment
Many young people will of course just find it humorous and think no more of it, but if actually asked whether they would you like one of their grandparents to experience this type of call about them, then their smile might start to falter.
My complaint is about the production team who allowed this to be broadcast. This broadcast was wrong because it publically disregarded the feelings of another person. From a grandmother (47) who normally finds Russell and Jonathon quite amusing.
Complain about this comment
The ironic thing about the radio show on Saturday was that at the start of the show Russell and Jonathan joked that the Mail on Sunday would be listening to them, waiting to find anything that they could in order to slate them.
Frankly, it must be a slow news week if prank phone calls are one of the main headlines. Yes it maybe wasn't the most appropriate thing to say but that's their job, to push the boundaries to find humour, and, from listening to it, I found it really quite funny.
The fact that it was prerecorded and that the producer had the option of whether or not to broadcast is should be where the main focus is, not on two presenters who are trying their best to get a laugh, they've done a similar thing on Dita VonTeese's answerphone and that didn't erupt into controversy, everyone needs to get a grip.
Complain about this comment
It was a "wrong", not something that appears to be within the mental or moral compass of any of the BBC responses I have yet seen.
You do not have to have witnessed a child's abuse to be aware that it is a "wrong".
The responses along the lines of "Some of our listeners/viewers thought it was great!" will lead the way to a new series of "One man and his Dogging."
The "Media" fall into the same trap as the chauffeur driven Judges, Islington and Hampstead "Chatterers" and many "Scene" homosexuals in believing that the mores and standards of their clique and its limited reactions with the "Majority" are the "Norm".
They are not.
The BBC's responses absolutely confirm that they are as an organisation exemplars of an ultra-guardianista societal sub-set that deliberately and patronisingly believes that its decadent and drug and trend affected views are not only correct but infinitely superior to the DESIRED standards of the vast bulk of society.
The claims of mass support of the young for this pair are quite possibly true for a small percentage of youth as there have always been the smutty graffiti scrawlers but they are , never have been and never will be the majority of our young people. For every one supporter of this shallow but vile "entertainment" I will raise you a 100 Scouts, St Johns' or VSO young men and women who would rightly characterise this output as the "Wrong" that it was. To paraphrase your patois, " GET A REAL LIFE!"
I Write as an ex militant tendency, former Spare Rib subscriber who has a violent temper, the ability to issue abuse of the foulest and most hurtful nature and a history of actions, thoughts and some deeds that to this day shame me.
As a person with that nature I am all to aware of how easy it is to be vile, but have never lost my knowledge that such actions are "Wrong" and believe that society needs to restrain people such as myself and this pair from committing such acts.
The Laisse-faire response of the BBC to this current but only latest dismantling of any sense of responsibility; personal or corporate within our society simply makes the Thatcher's claim that there is no such thing as society more of a prophecy than a statement.
They (Ross and Bland) and the BBC have almost led me to dispair, if it were not for my sure and certain knowledge of the great,often unheard and unrecognised, goodness of most of our population I would have arrived at that pit.
However; just as two bad famillies on one street in a council estate can ruin that street, and two such streets on that estate ruin the area, so can the actions of small unthinking, uncaring louts like Ross and Bland destroy or degrade a once great institution.
For clarity;
Sack them both without compensation.
Sack for Gross misconduct all line management/editors who approved or were cognisent of the transmitted material.
Require the immediate resignation of the Director General.
Insist that BBC at whatever cost place Equal employment advertisements to its current monopolism of the Guardian in the D Telegraph and even the vile D Mail and that positions of people's editors be established within the BBC on a salaried basis appointed by independents to, horror of horrors CENSOR or reposition its output for it to more accurately represent that "Man on the clapham omnibus"
Let common sense and humanity save us all.
Complain about this comment
Yes, this incident is a catalyst for a much wider debate ie standards of decency in this country. Many young people, by no means all, have never been taught good manners by their parents. They swear, put feet up on seats, do not stand for elderly passengers and much much worse. As a teacher I constantly fought bad manners but the children look at you as if you are an alien. Of course, their parents exhibit the same behaviour so the children have no good role models.
The furore which has broken out is a result of the silent majority finally speaking out and saying we have had enough and let's bring back some standards of common decency.
I hope this is a lesson to all TV personalities not just comedians. We do not wish to hear your constant swearing etc. Some of the behaviour and language is truly juvenile and has no place on public broadcasting.
Complain about this comment
I am fed up of being told what is acceptable and what is not.
If you dont like Ross or Brand them ignore them and listen to something safe that you prefer. Just dont stop me from being able to listen to them on the Radio. We all have different tastes in comedy and music but why do the po faced Daily Mail brigade want to tell us what we should and should not be able to listen to. Live and let live !
Complain about this comment
Here we go..another attempt by someone who is completely running off his own agenda in an attempt to defend the indefensible.
I have an extremely broad, some may say filthy, sense of humour and yet I found nothing funny about this puerile couple's attempt to degrade a much respected actor.
It was gutter filth of the worst kind and I'm surprised that there's anyone on the Beeb who has the brass neck to even try to defend this.
And to anyone who tells me to get a life...I'd suggest that you take a long hard look at yourself and ask if your Grandparents would be pleased and overjoyed to receive this bile.
Complain about this comment
We are already reaping the whirlwind for non regulation in the financial sector. I can think of no area in a civil society where the public in general is effected which should be unregulated. At the moment this is exactly how the BBC management would have it. Perhapse they deserve a good dose of Mrs Mary Whitehouse. The crass excuse of pushing comedie to the edge is unacceptable. The lack of response in general by BBC executives and McKensie's Blog in particular show the standards which are acceptable at the BBC, they are not the standards the majority of parents in the country hold. The BBC management are out of touch with the real world. This was not a "Prank", it was lewd and obscene behaviour by two juvenils indulging their sick minds.
Complain about this comment
Rod, those vox pops are a biased spin exercise
Clearly many old people will see the abuse given to Andrew Sachs as appalling
But many young people do too.
There are many young people who think its a laugh to bully their class mates, or to go happy slapping and videoing it on their mobiles...
...are you happy to crawl to this degenerate segment of society in order to try and plead a mandate for the appalling behaviour by Ross and Brand.
If Andrew Sachs had committed suicide from the shame, as joked about by Ross and Brand, what would you be saying them?
Their behaviour was indefensible
Is it funny to joke about breaking into Andrew sachs house to torment him?
Is that the example you want to set to young radio one listeners of what its OK to do for a giggle.
You make me ashamed to be a Radio 1 listener
Complain about this comment
Yeah I reckon the person up the bored got it right when they said
'It's a sad commentary on the world we live in that so many of the Radio 1 audience apparently don't give a toss about other people's feelings and sensibilities.
It was wrong and if the average Radio 1 listener doesn't understand that they need some education'
Oh course this is the Don Jolly , Phone Jacker generation.....or TV programmes where someone jumps on a complete strangers back and rides them like in a Rodeo....etc etc
I afraid people could explain and explain and still listeners of the piped pipers will not understand....or realise the wider picture....
Hmmmm????....
Complain about this comment
Although Andrew Sachs generously does not want to take the matter any further, he has said that he was not happy with the content of the phone messages and Georgina Baillie has said that he was “really upset”. The subsequent broadcast of the messages certainly defamed her.
The messages left on the answerphone fit the following description on West Midlands Police web site: “Malicious calls may be made by a small group of people who think it is funny or smart to make such obscene calls, or by callers who intend to upset you for revenge, anger or humour.” As others have pointed out, making malicious phone calls is a criminal offence under Section 43 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 and Section 92 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
Do you accept, Rod, that there is a prima facie case that the BBC’s employees have committed a criminal offence? If you and your colleagues will not condemn the leaving of the messages, which aspect of this legislation would you similarly not support if someone made a series of obscene phone calls to your phone?
A cynic might conclude that this blog entry is part of a conspiracy by the BBC’s management to divert attention from the criminal offence to matters of broadcasting taste.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
According to Rod M if the majority of listeners think the behaviour of Ross and Brand is accecptable then it is ok. It was not too long ago when the majority of a certain country considered concentration camps for a particular racial group was also acceptable. Majority accepatance of disgusting behaviour is no justification.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
A dark, black day for the BBC !!
Who is next to be assassinated by the 'sharks' at the Daily Mailograph brigade, now that they have the scent of blood in the water ?
Sacha Baron Cohen ?
Frankie Boyle ?
What programme is next off the air ?
Mock the Week ?
HIGNFY ?
The Thick of It ?
Make no mistake, while these two scamps needed to be punished, the Murdoch media will be using this poor girl as a platform to prosecute their all-out war on the Licence Fee.
Complain about this comment
There were 2 complaints at the time. These thousands of complaints from the Daily Mail's loyal readers (which came after the listen again was no longer availbale) should be disregarded: if you didn't listen to the broadcast, your views aren't valid.
I'm fed up with this rent-a-mob rubbish.
Complain about this comment
Thanks, treefernkate, for your characterisation of this behaviour as bullying and abusive. If a perpetrator were young and poor, they would likely receive as ASBO for it.
There is no excuse for tolerating such hateful behaviour within any organisation or in the output of any broadcaster.
Complain about this comment
@tinyBlueOrchid #80
"I don't want them sacked... As a licence payer they cost me an awful lot and I want every single penny's worth out of them. The blame for all this lies squarely with the idiot who let this be broadcast. He should be the one sacked for not doing his job properly."
-Why should some poor underling take the fall? The presenters have to take responsibilty for their actions.
I didn't hear the broadcast, but I didn't get the info from 'tabloids' either - I read the BBC transcripts and listened to the BBC audio clips - I can't be expected to do more than that.
'You can only complain if you heard the whole thing' - is just a way of trying to wriggle out of criticism.
If a reliable news source told me someone left a message on a fella's voicemail boasting he'd slept with his granddaughter I'd correctly think the guy was an idiot. I wouldn't have to hear every single word myself to correctly make that judgment.
What defenders of Ross and Brand miss is that the BBC is funded by licence-payers. Like it or not, licence-payers therefore have a say on who gets their money.
'Don't like it don't listen' say defenders, but could we not also say to presenters 'don't like the restrictions imposed by a publically-funded broadcaster? take your services to the commercial sector or online, then.'
And to reiterate to Rod, the incident happened on Radio 2 - the listeners of Radio 1 aren't totally relevant. Why not ask what listeners to BBC Asian Network, think as well?
Complain about this comment
Given that the under-18s are usually living at home and don't pay the licence fee, and that they're in a statistical minority, the editors should not be rushing to the defence of 'But the kids love us'.
The BBC clearly needs to relearn the lesson that you don't piss your paying customers off.
Complain about this comment
Well, if you think it's just the usual critics of the BBC and the Daily Mail Blue Rinse brigade getting the bag on over this, here's what I posted on another BBC message board earlier today:
"The fact is that this is about whether the BBC is bigger than the sum of its parts. Actually, if you are talking about Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand, the word you need is probably an /anagram/ of "parts" but you get my drift.
Both these people, who have risen from obscurity with no discernible talent that I can see, especially Brand, who is completely vacuous, have got to the stage where they think they are bomb-proof and can do what they like, and I am now looking to the BBC to prove that it is bigger than they are, and get shot of them. I want a signal that the BBC is /not/ obsessed with "yoof" and dumbing down to the extent of all else. With the likes of Chris Moyles and some of the more "edgy" (a word which never fails to send me scurrying for the off switch) "talent" on Radio 4 as well, I think we've already gone /too/ /far/ down that road and a re-balance needs to take place.
The essence of all humour is in timing and context, god knows I have made some pretty puerile comments in my time, but the point is that these two have been a) arrogant and displayed contempt and lack of judgement and b) petulant and less than forthcoming when actually caught out and brought to book.
Also, I see a difference (maybe it's just me) between doing a prank call which has actually had some thought put into it, aimed at a publicly available target, the sort of thing Dead Ringers used to do when they rang up the AA and said the Tardis had broken down and stuff like that, and ringing someone's home phone and leaving a series of stupid messages of varying degrees of obscenity on it. I mean, where's the /wit/ in that. It's the aural equivalent of mooning.
I've often defended the Beeb publicly against people who question the value of the licence fee and I think you have to look at the BBC's output as a whole with all its diversity and variety, but that doesn't mean I don't have my own views about where that money is best deployed.
As I have said many times before, put all the stuff that's normally on BBC4 and BBC3 onto BBC 1 and 2 and to make room for it bump all the dross off BBC1 onto minority digital channels for people who actually like snooker, synchronised swimming, horse jumping and reality TV.
Sack overpaid artists who think they have carte blanche to do what they like and put the savings into improving these message boards and or bidding for some more popular sporting events such as Test Cricket and England football internationals... Bring on some new talent, there's loads of it out there.
If the BBC "lose" Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand personally I don't see it as any great loss, and in the real world they will probably pop up on Channel 4 which is their natural home anyway alongside sex change freak big brother embarrassing diseases swap.
The sad thing about this imbroglio is that these two loons have now handed the likes of Sky and other people who would very much like to see the BBC and its uniquely funded place in public broadcasting fall into their lap, a stick with which to beat the BBC.
I don't necessarily blame the producers, because it must be very difficult to face up to a towering ego of the likes of Ross or Brand and say "sorry, this is just not good enough" but the suits at the Beeb should have squished this much more quickly than they did, sack cloth and ashes and if R & B wouldn't agree to that, then back to Beijing for the high jump with Sue Barker, I'm afraid."
So there. And yes if "salary envy" means that I think they are massively overpaid for what they do, I do think that. A spell in the real world wouldn't hurt them.
Complain about this comment
I think the opinions of a some Radio 1 listeners are of little consequence. They, Radio 1 listeners, will be, generally, young, ill-informed, immature, and not yet have developed a sense of what is appropriate and what is not appropriate.
The behaviour of both Ross and Brand was unacceptable, and if Radio 1 listeners think it was acceptable then clearly both education and parenting in this country are failing.
I dread the thought of government interference in the BBC, but if the BBC doesn't learn to police itself, that is what will happen.
McKenzie says, 'And anyway it was funny, wan't it?' No, it wasn't, and if he thinks it was he isn't mature enough to occupy his position (is he really 'a senior BBC executive'?)
Complain about this comment
Has the country gone mad were heading for a resesion i`m worryed about lossing my job and you lot are on a witch hunt sort it out for gods sake.
Complain about this comment
Oh dear Rod,
You still don't get it do you?
Your shilly-shallying about who finds this offensive and who does not is the worst kind of fence-sitting I've read from a BBC editor. There is STILL (unbelievably) a mindset within the Corporation that feels that this kind of thing is "edgy" and that you have to speak to the yoof market.
Oh, how wrong can you be.
These two buffoons have epitomised the failings of a whole generation of broadcasters to maintain quality and respect towards their listeners/viewers. Treat them like toe-rags and you get, surprise surprise, toe-rags.
Those of us who actually pay the BBC tax (and by the by it would be interesting to know how many of your R1 "supporters" pay for licence instead of leeching off their parents) have expectations and requirements from those people who have their salary (and very nice pensions thank you) funded by us. They do NOT include partaking in harassment of a 78 year old actors and denigrating their family.
Complain about this comment
Salary envy????????? Hahahahaha!! I'm sure it'll soon be featured in the Annals (mind the spelling) of Psychiatry under Newly-defined Neuroses, only it will go under a name such as McKenziemania : A form of desperate clutching at straws rather than admit guilt, a form of denial due to a morbid sense of self-agggrandizement.
Complain about this comment
A number of posters #17 blame the program editor for the furore surrounding Brand and Ross. However the fact remains that regardless of whether or not the clips were broadcast or not Andrew Sachs was subjected to insulting and bullying behaviour by two presenters wrapped up enough in their own ego's to go beyond what might be considered decent and concentrating on ways in which to out-do each other. We've seen Ross in particular go head-to-head with other comedians on his TV show on a regular basis but when this one-upmanship draws in innocent parties as victims then the humour, for me stops.
I find both Brand and Ross funny and like the edginess in general - but this reeked of a playground-teasing mentality and at that point becomes abhorrent.
Complain about this comment
Can I please have a refund of my licence fee as I object to paying these two "so-called" entertainers? All those, like the writer of the blog, who are defending these two are very welcome to pay for them.
The BBC should have the guts to sack them!
And, NO, I do not read the Daily Mail!"!!
Complain about this comment
Would Rod like to publish his mother of grandmothers phone number, allow us all to make obscene calls to them and then tell us if his anger stems from his jealousy of our salaries?
Ross has been skating on thin ice for a long time and a weak BBC management so feared he'd walk that they allowed him to carry on unchecked.
Brand saw what Ross got away with and thought he could do the same.
At almost 50 Ross needs to grow up, what wa amusing 20 years ago is less so in a man well into middle age.
Families risk a criminal record if they fail to pay the LF. I personally think the BBC is a good thing but the fee it's harder to justify it when tens of thousands of homesworth is used to fund the abuse of a 78 year old man.
Complain about this comment
How can people who didn't even hear the show when orginally broadcast make all these complaints, I feel it is just joining the bandwagon. Jonathan Ross is a great,very entertaining presenter and if the BBC decide to sack him it is a real loss to both radio and tv, he is one of the few entertaining presenters left around. Don't let political correctness gone mad cause the BBC to lose him. It was a moment of foolish madness and as it was pre-recorded aren't the prodcuers and management to blame in letting it be broadcast unedited?? Please don't sack Jonathan, his shows really cheer up my Friday night and Saturday morning.
Complain about this comment
I am not a Daily Mail reader and I consider myself an open minded person, even occassionally watching the programs of said presenters. When I read the transcript of the show however I couldn't believe that this was allowed to go out as a joke in a BBC2 radio show.
Leaving alone the discussion wether this was a good or a bad joke or indeed edgy, whatever that means, you will always find someone to defend such broadcasts. Some people also find happy slapping funny. But does the BBC really have to sink to such levels to back up a cleary awful editing decision?
As someone pointed out the left message actually constitutes a punishable offence and for me that is enough even though
I am astonished that a legal argument has to be found in the lack of a moral one.
Some parts of the BBC seem surprised about the backlash against Ross and Brand
and think people are just jealous of their "success". I think it has more to do with the fact that large parts of viewers have been so fed up with BBC programs at urinal levels that they can't wait to rid the airwaves of such broadcasts and clearly they are out for Ross this time. He has overstepped the mark and he should not be allowed to just carry on as if nothing has happended. That contradicts the feeling of fairness, morality and decency in a majority of people. How long can they be ignored?
Complain about this comment
What a sad loss for Radio 2 that Russell has resigned. Jonathan and Russ are the only reasons I have started to listen to Radio 2 again after many, many years. I can only hope that Jonathan is reinstated after the investigation.
Complain about this comment
Am I young to comment being 23 years old or do I have to be 5? I think that neither of these so called comedians should be employed with the BBC any longer, we are entering an economic recession and all these idiots can do is play practical jokes on our most beloved countrymen. Who do they think they are? Oh... and by the way, using "Newsbeat" quotes to suggest that young people are supposedly supporting this behavior is pathetic. Do you really think that radio one listeners are the large majority of licensee fee payers? Do you think that most young people like listening to that radio station that is constantly overflowing with verbal garbage about going out on the town to get drunk?
Complain about this comment
#105: Just for the record, I never buy the Daily Mail, because I think it's obnoxious. I'm normally a staunch supporter of the BBC and the licence fee. I still complained about Brand and Ross.
Your argument "if you didn't hear the programme, you have no right to complain" holds no water at all. I didn't hear the programme, but the fact that the pair left obscene messages on the voicemail of a harmless old man is, I believe, not remotely in doubt. That's what I object to.
I wasn't around in Germany in the 1930s either. Do you also think I have no right to criticise Hitler?
Whether I will still consider myself a staunch supporter of the licence fee in future will depend on what action the BBC takes over this disgraceful affair. If Rod McKenzie's sickeningly complacent attitude is representative, I think I might start to think the licence fee has had its day.
Complain about this comment
This is the first decent thing the BBC has done for ten years, putting a stop to the abuse of our language. The n next step should be Gordon Foulmouthed Ramsey and Jamie Oliver, how do they justify the constant use of the 'F' word to their children? By the amount of money they are paid to use it - reverse the trend - do not pay them to promote bad language on air - fine them for it, everytime and increase that fine every time they use it - the problem will be solved in twelve months!
DrWhinge
Complain about this comment
Mr. McKenzie - who do you think you are kidding? The BBC admits to receiving 18,000 complaints about the Russell Brand/ Jonathan Ross obscene 'phone calls.
You say your post is six to one in favour of these two gentlemen. I am sure it is. But how many letters/emails of support did you get? Six??
Come on! Some of us were not born yesterday!!
Complain about this comment
Another cynical BBC numpty tries to blag his way out of the mire.
No-one believes you Rod.
And smearing those who complain about your crap programme-making as "Daily Mail Readers" only makes you look EVEN stupider.
Complain about this comment
Why did Brand get the chance to resign, he was guilty, as was his sidekick Ross of gross misconduct and of a possible criminal offence. He and Ross should have been removed from post instantly. This is grounds for summary dismissal in the world where the people who finance the BBC live and work. The Director General must show leadership for once and order that Ross's contract be immediately terminated and his and Brand's actions be reported to the police and charges brought as an example to all other people employed in the organisation that they must behave in an acceptable manner. They are grown men , albeit grossly overpaid and should have been aware of the responsibilities and standard of behaviour required of them. They must therefore like any other common criminals, face the consequences.
Complain about this comment
A right wing attack on the BBC? Are you lot serious? They were both grossly offensive and the show was broadcast without Andrew Sachs permission. This makes it a criminal offence. This is a clear failure to follow guidelines, just look at the terms and conditions attach to this blog.
The other crime is the show wasn't even that funny
Complain about this comment
I reckon this *has* been blown way out of proportion. Yes it was in bad taste, no I'm not an old person (22 at the moment), but at the end of the day, it was a prank gone wrong. Both men have apologised (Ross in person I might add) and Brand has quit his job too (not that finding a new one will be difficult). Can't we just let it be now?
Complain about this comment
Forgive me if I'm wrong but didn't the Daily Mail "break" this "news" at the weekend?
Nobody seemed to mind about it for over a week after the incident was broadcast on Radio 2 (18/10) did 17,000 people suddenly decide to complain after simultaineously listening to an out of date podcast?
Or is this a case of "Brass Eye syndrome" where people haven't actually bothered to listen to what they are complaining about, after all, if it's in the newspapers it must be true!
I'm glad that Brand hasn't cowtowed to these idiots demanding his head and has, by resigning, effectively told them where to shove their opinions.
I also noticed that the grand daughter is represented by a certain Max Clifford, so she won't be making any money out of this then? I'm sure her work with S&M themed dance troupe "The Satanic Sluts" payes enough then? (I'm surprised the Mail's editorial staff haven't imploded with the contradictions presented by the case!)
Besides, why didn't Sachs answer the phone to conduct the pre arranged interview to publicise his new TV show?
Maybe Brand and Ross went too far but please, storms and teacups spring to mind!
Complain about this comment
Well thank you for the opposite view, showing that many people find Russell and Jonathon funny, and enjoy their shows.
Younger people tend to want different humour from their parents and an older segment of society, and that is not what is being condemned here.
In this case, the actions were a direct and unwarranted attack on an individual.
Many, not directly affected, appear happy to enjoy the joke, not appreciating its impact on those on the receiving end.
As an editor, you need to consider the difference between jokes, albeit offensive ones, which offend many, and actions which are inappropriate attacks on real, live individuals, whose lives have been adversely affected just for short-term amusement.
Many of the articles by BBC staff repeat the phrase 'prank phone call', which appears to show a lack of appreciation for the rights and lives of individuals.
These were abusive calls and comments - refer to them for what they were.
Complain about this comment
@110 - giornata - thanks for telling me my opinion doesn't count.
That type of comment if far worse than anything Brand said weeks ago.
Complain about this comment
Interesting that my post quoting examples of abusive comments by Chris Moyles against Nicola Roberts of Girls Aloud over several years, and referring to several other of his other notorious comments was moderated.
I dont see how Chris Moyles' behaviour in this regard has been any better than that of Jonathan Ross or Russell Brand.
Chris has made an apology, of sorts, to Nicola Roberts, but when do the BBC learn that its simply not good enough to think saying sorry after complaints excuses the behaviour.
All three (Brand, Ross, and Moyles) should be censured equally by the BBC
As an audience, quite frankly, we've had enough of it.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
After tonight's BBC News harping on about viewing/listening figures for Ross' shows, I think the following is worth highlighting:
4.2 million people watched Jonathan Ross' show last week. More will have watched it via the Saturday repeat, iPlayer, and plain old recording it. 3 million people regularly listen to his radio show.
0.01 million people's complaints have led to him being suspended. Seems a bit unbalanced to me.
I have no doubt some of those ratings would drop off in the wake of this massive overreaction, but I think many would be surprised how small the drop would be -- no doubt indicating the silent majority who realise how overblown this has become.
Complain about this comment
anita_r
re post #109: well said, couldnt agree more.
Most of us here have probably enjoyed some of Russell Brand's and Jonathan Ross' material in the past, myself quite a lot.
However, just because they have some good material, it doesnt give the excuse to play god with real people and publicly abuse them for the purpose of their own careers, and to give others a cheap laugh at their expense. Particularly when they target the elderly with obscene material, and joke about their target possibly killing themselves from the shame.
As a young man, I know that people from my grandparents generation have quite different expectations of society, than many younger people accept as inevitable today. We should not let down this generation that fought for out country by making them the butt of abusive phone calls from the BBC of all institutions. As Churchill would have said: this must stop, I expect action this day!
Both presenters have the experience to know right from wrong, they even made a joke of that fact multiple times in the transcript. They just didnt care, and being let off from the consueqences of similarly abusive remarks in the past made them feel untouchable.
Well, its about time the press and journalists learned that they are not untouchable, and that they do not have to right to intrude into people's private lives and abuse them for their own commercial ends.
It seems with these suspensions, and increasing tendencies for courts to support actions on privacy grounds, we are slowly getting towards a society that has a little more respect for private individuals.
Lets see these doorstepping papparazzi controlled next. They simply should not have a right to shove cameras in people's faces and shout at them in the street.
I hope we are seeing a new era of respect for the person being ushered in....
Complain about this comment
hi, im 16 and i a really big fan of russell brand and think his bbc2 radio show episod in question was very very funny. I also think it has been well blown at of proportion and think that the bbc have taken this tottaly wron. so i have desided to boycot the bbc and i think all fans of good comedy should join me!!
yours angrily
J.C.P
Complain about this comment
OK, so Ross and Brand have overstepped the mark. Personally I think there has been a bit of an overreaction. But I still think Ross should be sacked. WHY? Because he's Jonathan Ross, he's not funny, he's grotesquely overpaid and I am loving the schadenfreude of it all.
Best outcome for me - Ross gets the bullet, Andrew Sachs takes over his show. After a few weeks Sachs, on air, calls JR at home and leaves a message on the answer-phone, "Hey Jonathan, mate - did you know my grand-daughter has had your unemployed hairy chum!". Lovely.
Complain about this comment
this is one of the most hypocritical moment in broad casting i have ever seen.
OK the joke was dubious but nothing that deserves such coverage by the media.
Brand and Ross are both great presenters. They often have humour under the belt so do not listen if you do not like it.
When the BBC sacked Angus Deayton, have I got new became drab and boring all this for what?
because tabloids went for him in his private life?
You loose Brand and Ross for a silly and offensive joke for which they have apologised, what is there left to watch or listen to?
stop all this nonsense please.
from a mother of children
Complain about this comment
I will really miss Brands brilliant radio show. I, like Rob, actually wonder who, out of the 18,000 odd complaints, actually listen to the show regularly or have experienced Russell's humor at all. There is a clear divide between generations. Do the older generation listen to the show?(There was only something like 2 complaints after airing!). Are they complaining because what they've heard 1st hand or read 2nd hand? (do the elder generation have access to listen again to the show). It was edgy comedy that went a little too far, all that should be needed is an apology and then left alone. The BBC have now lost a programme/podcast and presenter which were one of the best on the BBC. It was the first Radio 2 show I listened to and I suspect it was the same for other listeners, bridging the gap between Radio 1 and 2.
Complain about this comment
I'm all for humour, all for edge, but can see no defence for making the life of a real individual, who has done nothing to offend Brand or Ross, so palpably uncomfortable by these offensive telephone messages, broadcast on national radio and about a close family member.
Sorry, that is NOT funny.
Whether or not the pair deserve to be sacked is for others to decide, but the mealymouthed 'apology' that Russell Brand made in the aftermath further compounded the offence, as did the appalling lack of judgement by the BBC in allowing the episode to be broadcast.
Perhaps the younger listeners who seem to have no problem with this behaviour need to empathise a little more with others. After all, I very much doubt that many of them would be too pleased if one of their grandparents was treated in this way, with the youth of Britain listening in and laughing at their relative's discomfiture.
Complain about this comment
Rod, you've let yourself down badly by trying to stand up for Brand and Ross. The replies you've had from the Radio 1 audience tell us everything we need to know about them, but I would have hoped you could see that there is no defence .
Still, what do you expect from a section of the population that chooses to listen daily to the cruel jibes of Chris Moyles in the name of entertainment? On Radio 1 you are developing a culture that glories in creating humour from insulting and humiliating people, and the fact that so few of your listeners recognise this is very worrying.
Please stop trying to be trendy, pretendng that there is a discussion to be had here when clearly there is not. Just admit that this was a ghastly, sordid episode in the BBC's proud history, one that has been roundly condemned by the DG, before you get dragged into it for attempting to defend the indefensible just to keep you on the right side of your audience.
Complain about this comment
Only people who have no moral compass could possibly think that these two ageing juvenile delinquents should not be sacked and prosecuted, along with those responsible for editing and producing the show.
Well, at least Brand has resigned. That perhaps shows a sense of responsibility and a bit of backbone.
Thus far the BBC appears to understand how damaging this affair will be if it does what it usually does in these cases - just rap a few people gently over the knuckles and move on without taking any disciplinary action whatsoever. If the BBC really thinks that an apology or two and the suspension of Ross (on full pay no doubt) is enough in this case, it is making a serious mistake.
Complain about this comment
There may be a dichotomy of views between younger and older generations over this issue but that is the whole point.
By paying an obscene amount of licence-payers money and giving massive broadcasting exposure to Jonathan Ross, the BBC has not only made him a "star" but has set him up as a role model for the young. He has consistently pushed the boundaries of taste and decency (for which 'Auntie' ought, rightly, to be relied upon as a gatekeeper) towards lewd and sexual innuendo, becoming ever more explicit and less implicit. This current furoe is the result and represents the point at which the national elastic snapped. The fact that the dichotomy of views exists in a generational context simply demonstrates the damage Wossy has inflicted on our cultural heritage in general and the values of the young - the future of this great nation - in particular. This is not the stuff of public broadcasting either in the Reith compact or in the 21st Century. In an age of multiple broadcasting there are plenty of stations who could employ this stuff.
The sadness is that Wossy really is a talented fellow and I have seen him conduct some fine interviews. His problem is his pubescent predilection for smut - and I am no prude but I object to being forced to pay through the licence fee for that. I can choose not to watch but I should not feel I should need to for that reason when I am a compulsory payer for this service. As for Brand, he is unworthy of comment.
Complain about this comment
Maybe one thing that contributed to all those complaints is Ross's past record. He has delivered a lot of appalling stuff and I'm sure a lot of people haven't understood why the BBC were prepared to be so tolerant. Risque or edgy don't describe it. I remember one airing of They Think It's All Over in which Ross told Lineker he'd been around to the footballer's house and had his wife (familiar 'joke', evidently). But that wasn't all. Ross then described how he cleaned himself up. I couldn't believe what he was saying, and I couldn't repeat it. For one thing, it would ensure intervention by the moderator. Didn't stop the BBC letting it be aired, though!
Complain about this comment
Is society so wrapped in cotton wool that people can't be insulted? Imagine Winston Churchill being disciplined for calling a woman ugly? Part of life is being able to shrug off verbal attacks then retaliate. This was no hate crime or slander, just dumb.
Mr Sachs could of deleted the messages in seconds and dealt with the matter personally. Instead he talks to the press. The BBC should of fined the pair a month's wages and got Sachs on Friday night with Jonathan Ross and Brand, so the fools could publicly apologise and give him his interview. Instead public money goes on an inquiry.
People complain about exaggerated political correctness and a lack of competition in school sport days. What message is this to young adults? One swear word on a answering machine is more important than the recession? American election? Energy prices? I don't condone what was done but lets have some perspective. I'm sure that Mr Sachs has been called worse by better people.
The BBC is in a terrible state and just got worse, my license pays for Top Gear and this website. I'll pay for Jonathan Ross if you pay for soaps and reality TV.
Complain about this comment
"stormin3751 wrote:
Maybe one thing that contributed to all those complaints is Ross's past record. He has delivered a lot of appalling stuff and I'm sure a lot of people haven't understood why the BBC were prepared to be so tolerant."
CORRECT stormin3751. This incident is the straw that broke the camel's back. I have been entertained often by Ross Brand and Moyles, but there are often times when they say things which they should be hauled over the coals for, but very little ever seems to happen.
Well done to the British public for standing up to be counted and saying enough is enough!
There must be an investigation of this brand of obscene and vile comedy wherever it is found.
Ross should be sacked tomorrow, to send a clear message that this behaviour is not acceptable.
Rod McKenzie's blog entry puts a big signpost over Radio 1 showing the Director General that there is something rotten in the state of Radio 1 too.
Moyles has blotted his copybook too many times with similar abusive "comedy" and should be suspended also.
Complain about this comment
Check yourself before you wreck yourself. They should both fall on their sword. Lets re-invent.
Complain about this comment
So far I have not heard one intelligent argument in defence of these two presenters- not one. No surprise really because there is no defence. Attempts to justify are feeble minded stereotyping, or loosely connected bunch of dismissive cliches, which demean the writers.
The only thing that is irrefutable in all this, is that there is absolutely no justification for what they did.
I heard about this first from the BBC website which is my home page. I never read tabloids and have no idea what they are saying. I don't listen to Bland's show because I simply don't find it funny, soo I went over to Youtube where their broadcast is plastered all over the place- just one of the many uploads of it had 84,900 hits so plenty of people have seen and heard them in action- I was appalled by their behaviour and the messages they left on Sach's phone.
Soo I read the Times and Telegraph take on it and listened to all interviews on the beeb. I'll hazard a guess that many of the show's listeners have not bothered to do any research, because they smugly think they listened to the show which makes them the experts..hmm maybe some of the show's regular listeners ought to go over and read some of the FACTS surrounding this broadcast.
This is no witch hunt- what I see is public outrage and quite rightly so. And the fact that so many (mainly youngsters) seem to think this was 'no big deal' and 'hilarious' makes it even more important that the BBC act decisively and quickly to end Jonathan Ross's contract, and send out the clear message to our youth that this is not humour it is totally unacceptable behaviour. A publicly funded National institution should NOT tolerate immoral and criminal behaviour.
Mr McKenzie please don't insult our intelligence- we can see right through your heavily biased, manipulative blog.
I have always defended the BBC and the licence fee - but this has been a real eye-opener. You and your colleagues would do well to remember that you exist by Royal Charter. And we the fee paying, boring middle classes expect higher standards than the gutter media!
I hope the DG will do the right thing.
Complain about this comment
I do not see any common sense, middle ground comments here, .....like Mr Brand's humour, love him or hate him, tell me somebody, did the BBC have the foresight to PRE-RECORD Russell Brand's show...... hmmmm YES i do believe they did . Now why was that i ask myself ? if the controllers of his show had been doing their job correctly and EDITING, this whole tragic affair could have been avoided, discreet phone calls made in apology etc etc etc. How did this whole thing make it into the media glare somebody squealed to the daily mail, no capitals required, and now the grand-daughter is parading herself in her best off the shoulder party frock, claiming how her relationship with her grandfather has been permanently scarred by this whole affair, ANY women that has sexual relations with Mr Brand must know that it has the possible repercussion of ending up in his act , honestly , he has history !!
The Daily Mail must be very upset at losing the story to a RED TOP paper. VERY BADLY MANAGED at all levels. All concerned should GO, fall on your swords.
Complain about this comment
The issue is not about an open and shut case, its about the standards set for good entertainment.
The British public deserve better than to watch 2 entertainers prat about, with skills equal only to those of any cheerful , cocky guys in the local pub. Their scripts are poor which is why they ad lib and abuse others and break boundaries of decency.
How can they deserve their pay?
I praise the BBC often but this so called 'appeal to wider audiences' is condoning rubbish. This doesn't help British values, instead it gives permission to our society to rubbish whoever it chooses.
Complain about this comment
Making lewd & obscene phone cvalls is a criminal offence - not a joke.
Are you saying that the Bebb needs to encourage/condone criminal aCTIVITY?
Complain about this comment
Let me put this simply.
1.If you don't want your grandfather to find out about your sexual escapades with someone whose exploits are well known - then don't do it. I'm sure that the pay off from The Sun has more than made up for it - victim? I think not!
2.Whether you like Brand and Ross is irrelevant - switch them off if they offend. The fact is they do appeal to a large number of people and pull in massive viewing figures.
3.This prank call was prerecorded and offended Mr Sachs. The BBC's decision to air it despite the offence is despicable and they should take ownership of that irresponsibility NOT shift the blame onto their employees who were fulfilling the remit of their jobs.
4.Why is this news??!!! 160 people plus were killed in an earthquake and I see no comments/little coverage about that?! We should be ashamed that yet again celebrity culture is taking precedence over real issues.
Complain about this comment
The person in the BBC who should be sacked is the idiot who agreed to pay the terminally unfunny Jonathan Ross £6 million per year. Ross is not funny now, and has never been funny in the past. He is just an arrogant dimwit- so no, I'm not surprised that he has the support of the Radio 1 "demographic".. Archgrumpy at post 150 makes a good point . If a similar message arrived on my answering machine, I would report it directly to the police- now wouldn't that be edgy, Messrs Ross and Brand?
Complain about this comment
Having sat back and watched the storm created by these two idiots I can't agree with the people who say (a) it was funny - because it wasn't and (b) it's been blown out of all proportion.
Having a joke and laugh on air is one thing - leaving lewd messages on an answering machine is another and, at the end of the day these two made lewd phone calls and left messages on an answering machine - that is a criminal offence and definitely NOT funny in anyone's books!
Having read more of the transcripts Jonathan Ross would appear to have been the worst of the two and the one making the most offensive comments but, unlike Russell Brand who has spoken publicly admitting it was totally wrong and done the honourable thing by resigning, Ross has merely issued a statement and is trying to hang on to his grossly inflated salary.
Ross should also go and save the licence payers some money!
Complain about this comment
Well, Mr. McKenzie, there are a lot of comments here asking for your reply. Where are you? Hiding behind "auntie"?
Complain about this comment
I had this argument with my son, who thought the "prank" was funny. But my wife and I were upset by it. Not because we don't enjoy edgy humour, we do, but because the butt of this gag was a 78 years old, because it was our beloved "Manuel", and because the messages, which we regarded as bullying, were left on his answer phone. But I daresay had Brand and Ross rung Gordon Brown I'd have been laughing.
Complain about this comment
#151 "Whether you like Brand and Ross is irrelevant - switch them off if they offend. The fact is they do appeal to a large number of people and pull in massive viewing figures."
Hitler appealed to a lot of people and pulled in massive audiences too. Should the BBC start broadcasting anti-semitic rants too? Presumably anyone offended can also turn off.
Equally your point 1) I wouldn't want my grandparents being told about my sex life and I certainly wouldn't want it being broadcast on radio 2 either. Do you suggest I stop having sex just in case? Everyone has the right to reasonable privacy and that is actually enshrined in law. Brand and Ross could quite reasonably be prosecuted under both the human rights act for this.
Complain about this comment
Memo to BBC: Please replace this week's "Friday Night with Jonathan Ross" with some Fawlty Towers re-runs!
Complain about this comment
Looks like yet another of my comments criticising the BBC over this has been 'refered to the moderators'
How ironic that the house rules allow any comments deemed to be capable of causing offense or sexually explicit to be deleted, yet Brand & Ross's comments get pre-approval for broadcast.
Complain about this comment
#157. I'd agree had Ross been suspended WITHOUT pay. Frankly I don't see why we should all be paying a licence fee to support Ross's 6 million salary when instead we get 30 year old repeats on prime time.
Complain about this comment
Actually I have a theory regarding humour - I'm sure others may agree with me here: I have NO PROBLEM AT ALL with offensive humour ... AS LONG AS IT IS REALLY FUNNY.
However if it isn't funny then the comedian deserves to reap the whirlwind of outrage and obviously the more offensive the "joke", the more stormy the resulting fallout will be.
So comedians take note - if you are going to be outrageous, be sure to be funny ... OR ELSE!
Complain about this comment
It seems to me Rod McKenzie you are missing the point.
Just because people did not listen at the time and complained later is surely perfectly acceptable? Who can listen to all BBC output, evidently no one in the organisation does but I'm sure bosses feel it is their right to reprimand Editors when standards of taste and decency are brought to their attention after the event. And I would contend licence fee payers have the same right.
I have not only relied on the print transcripts but have listened on youtube and it's foul, sexist and obscene. It's not a prank call. The BBC has paraded the likes of Davina McCall saying they were 'silly boys' then admitting she had not heard the broadcast. Sad day for any woman who actually believed the days of this type of humour being put down to a boyish prank as being over. I wonder how many of your BBC Radio 1 supporters were 1. Male and 2. Had not heard the broadcast before weighing in.
As a few commercial radio DJ's have commented had they done the same in the name of their station they would have been sacked, so why would a BBC broadcaster be any different?
Complain about this comment
I like Ross, don't think Brand has any talent. But at least hes has gone, Ross should do the same thing and quit.
The BBC hang on to these stars at inflated rates of pay but let sports rights go and cancel TOTP Christmas special. The BBC needs to get its priorites in order.
Brand and Ross should not be allowed to broadcast on the BBC or any other station ever again. I never heard the broadcast, but reading the transcript of the show, it went beyond what is acceptable, from any point of view.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Well done director general, for I think it is about time this sort of swearing is halted on all BBC programs. It seems that if you are a comedian it is perfectly o.k. to use the 'f' word. Some say it is to cater for a younger audience, piffle! They should be setting a standard by which our youthful listeners should learn and behave in a more civil manner. Because of this use of swearwords on air,school children are now uttering these swearwords,as if they think it is part of our normal language! Entertainers should have a anti swear clause written into their contracts! If broken, it means instant dismissal. Being obscenely overpaid does not give you the right to make a mockery out of the system.
Complain about this comment
I think the only open and shut case is that this proves that there's one law for "them" and another for "us". If you are a "celebrity" or a politician, you can get away with making obscene phone calls or taking bribes for handing out peerages. But if you're just one of the little people like the rest of us, expect to be prosecuted for putting your recycling in the wrong bin.
Complain about this comment
Is it just me or has this whole sorry episonde achieved it's aim 100-fold by generating publicity for the Beeb?
Complain about this comment
To put things in context the public purse pays Jonathan Ross 6 times as much as is spent researching hospital superbugs.
The BBC SERIOUSLY needs to get a sense of priority in what it spends our money on.
Complain about this comment
The BBC employs comedians who push the boundaries because they are very popular.
It is because such comedians can overstep the mark of decency that TV/radio programmes are pre-recorded; much material is edited out. This is the culture that these comedians work in; it allows them to be free with with their comedy. They often, knowingly, cross boundaries during recording safe in the knowledge that it will be edited out.
On this occasion, Ross and Brand made a mistake and have apologised.
The persons who should be punished are those who allowed it to be broadcast in the first place.
Complain about this comment
I have to say i've never bothered to log onto this commenting system until now.
I'm outraged at the way this has been blown out of all proportions by both the press and by government employees who quite frankly have more important issues to concentrate on.
the fact is we have significantly worse influences on our society and on our television than these two.
they made a mistake, they apologised, get over it.
ultimately it appears that much of this is fueled less by Sachs (who agreed, it was wrong to spam his voicemail) than his publicity hungry granddaughter and media desperate to give us something that isn't economy related.
the fact that the government is making any comment just shows how out of touch our MP's (regardless of party) are with the public.
shame on Brand and Ross? i say shame on the busybodies who jump on bandwagons like this and send them spiraling out of all sense.
we can no longer afford to act like we live in 1940's britain with 1940's value (however good, or bad they were).
Complain about this comment
Rod McKenzie,
Re Brand and Ross.
You have said that there is an alternative view which is certainly worth considering.
Since the alternative view is that it is ok to send lewd and obscene phone calls to a 78 year old pensioner through the airways I would be pleased to hear from you as to in what way you think the alternative view is worth considering.
Complain about this comment
A challenge for Rod McKenzie
It looks as if Radio 1 needs to re-educate its listeners about what is acceptably funny, and what is not. For example, many people find Little Britain crude and offensive, but there is usually a point to the jokes, eg:
Fatfighters Club is a NOT a joke about overweight people - the gag is actually on Marjorie Dawes, whose unlovely personality is far worse than being too heavy;
Emily ("I'm a lady") Howard is not a joke about transvestites - it's about how people unsuccessfully try to hide personal things about themselves from the rest of the world;
Lou and Andy is not a joke about the disabled - it's about the way lazy layabouts take advantage of the good but naive people close to them.
No here is a challenge for you, Rod - please EXPLAIN the joke perpetrated by Brand and Ross. Where is the humour? You can ask as many Radio 1 listeners as you like to help you out.
Or are you and Radio 1 failing the country by suggesting it's OK to laugh at other people's misfortune? Please let the DG know your answer.
Complain about this comment
Fire both these mediocre infantile smut merchants.Both are a gross waste of public money.If they are rated as top quality entertainers God help us .Get rid of all involved
Complain about this comment
I had my comments removed with no explanation given. In a nutshell I said the BBC was a waste of money and was full of wasters. I would have thought that was a statement of fact. And how come they could censor this but not Bland and Dross. Heho now we see the bias vested interest in action. And we know that a lot of the people standing up for them are BBC employees including the editors of this blog. And look at Mr MCkenzie too he looks about fifty like the old fogeys he attacks.
Complain about this comment
Those who say "if you don't like it don't listen" are missing the point. License payers, such as myself, pay for this programming whether we listen or not. I find there is much that offends me about BBC programming - but little is cause for complaint. This situation is different. Why? Because it's not simply a stage show, on air commentary, pre-recorded sketch show or whatever it's an interaction in the real world.
Any employee with this sort of behaviour at work should be sacked for gross misconduct.
Doesn't the BBC have a policy against bullying and harassment in the workplace?
Complain about this comment
I know it's nearly Halloween but I didn't expect a witchhunt. Some of the responses from the right wing press would put an islamic fundamentalist to shame! Get a grip! We have a recession, 2 oil giants reporting huge profits, house prices slumping, increasing unemployment and all people want to talk about is a joke on Radio 2.. why don't theese people get so annoyed at that? I mean, 30,000 people!! It's ridiculous! I would like to know how many of them actually heard the show.. not many I bet! As usual the british public are sheep led by a politically motivated media.. they bleet and the crowds follow.
Oh, Georgina Baillie was offended at being represented in such a way was she? Or do we call her Voluptua of the Satanic Sluts? If anyone would like to check their website ([Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]) to see innocent Georgina naked in a bath holding a knife and another girl naked with her with her throat slit it's currently on view.. Daily Mail - would you like to protest about that?
p.s. what are the odds on Voluptua, sorry.. Georgina being on the front cover of either Nuts, Zoo, or Loaded in the next few weeks? She won't mind embarressing grandad then when she's being paid for it will she?
Complain about this comment
I am a huge Russell Brand fan and also of Jonathon Ross's radio show and cannot believe the media furore surrounding this story. I agree they both went overboard but am saddened that Russell has resigned. I see Georgina Baillie managed to get over her personal distress by selling her story to The Sun newspaper today.
Complain about this comment
The question is.. If you commit a criminal act and get caught, is it a defence to say it was a prank.
Or do we decide due to current fashionable trends which crimes are punishable and which criminal offences are inconvenient at the present time.
There is either law for us all or none , it really is that simple.
Complain about this comment
"I see Georgina Baillie managed to get over her personal distress by selling her story to The Sun newspaper today."
She might as well cash in seeing as the media have now ensured that even Gordon Brown knows she slept with Brand
Complain about this comment
Oh, and another thing: it really annoys me that so many of the stories about this on the BBC website use the phrase "prank" call.
I don't really mind whether you describe the call as obscene, nuisance, malicious, harassing, or illegal, but please don't trivialise this by calling it a "prank".
Complain about this comment
Rod, it seems you have completely lost your way. How many calls of support for Ross and Brand on your blog? Not many. Certainly not 6:1 in favour!!!
I refer you below to what another illustrious comedian has said about the incident... Steve Coogan. Perhaps you should read it slowly and take it seriously.
" ...in comedy you have to make a judgement about things.
“I have done stuff that some people might consider close to the bone. As Alan Partridge, I insult certain people, but the joke is on Alan for his bigotry.
“Comedy is about how you couch things. But it was very mean spirited what they did and I was angry when I saw it.”
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/showbiz-and-lifestyle/news/2008/10/30/steve-coogan-speaks-out-about-brand-and-ross-91466-22148936/
Complain about this comment
Well at 25 I would consider myself to be a part of that younger audience and personally I think what they did was wrong and in extremely poor taste - they should have recognised that what they were doing was not funny or clever and to say that they were caught up in the moment when it was prerecorded does not justify what they did.
I think to suspend Rossy is fair and as for Russell Brand - we wont see the last of him. They have to learn the value of self censorship, but of course what we should continue to champion is risky and edgy comedy just let us occasionally think before we speak!
Complain about this comment
At last, a more balanced piece on this story.
I'd like to add that the age difference reaction is also not as clean-cut as it first appears. I'm in my 40s and fully support Brand and Ross.
I love comedy. I've heard the recording and find it funny.
All of the people I work with who have taken the opposite view are not aware of the full story. For them, it's just "two blokes leave a nasty message on old man's ansering machine". When I have explained the full details, most people have changed their minds.
Complain about this comment
The main issue is that this occurred on the BBC. The BBC is OUR public broadcasting company and as such has special responsibilities in our cultural life. If this had occurred on a commercial channel I would have been inclined to ignore it as I do have better things to do. Leave the devil to look after his own!
To me this issue is important as it is the result of the mistaken policy that the BBC has pursued for some years in directly competing in the ratings wars with the commercial companies. This has meant risk taking not for artistic merit but solely for rating figures. Ask bankers why they behaved so irresponsibly and they will say they were put under pressure by competition. We now know where this has led.
It is so sad to see the BBC embroiled in these now ever more numerous controversies. All creative people endeavour to exercise integrity with their work and if it is ‘edgy’ must ask themselves if they have gone ‘over the edge’. What ever your chosen discipline when it goes to far it becomes quite rapidly rubbish and embarrassing for all concerned.
This euphemistically labelled ‘prank’ was obviously not put under sufficient scrutiny and also has been tragically compounded by a serious institutional failure in not quickly spotting total garbage and stopping the rot. A double whammy.
The BBC must bring back the notions of excellence in the services of broadcasting to us hard pressed licence payers. You are in the financially enviable position of being able to ditch competition and the ratings game. Surely for the BBC to have to buy in mediocre artists at such grotesque salaries must signal that things aren’t well.
Let us see the BBC take risks by leading rather than following.
Complain about this comment
it is not an open and shut case sadly there are underlying factors that run deep within the bbc.
over recent years the bbc has failed to vet those they hire properly so they end up with drug users and faked phone in polls let alone sloppy radio dj's and now this problem.
it is on those that hired mr ross and brand to explain themselves and on the producers of there shows to explain what they were doing at the time.
thus you can not blame mr brand or ross becouse they are known and have on many occasion been inapropriate, remember mr brand and his accusations of a deed with an older rock stars daughter.
and mr ross has come very close on his own show to being insulting.
so why were they hired in the first place, this is what should be asked as well as what they did.
to hire personalities just becouse they are popular is self distructive if you dont check why they are popular.
bbc bosses realy need a rethink on methods of vetting.
so mr ross and brand may be guilty of bad taste and foul language but there producers and support staff are also guilty of a lack of control and thus should suffer much the same fate as the presenters.
i can only hope the bbc learns from recent events and tightens up there regulations to ensure good quality programmes for the future.
Complain about this comment
To All
What you seem to forget is that these gentlemen ?, knew that they were being offensive in that they said that Mr Sachs would/could possibly kill himself over the messages left for him. In doing this they have violated any sense of decency. In response to something new for the younger generation, I sincerely hope that the BBC take a dim view that pensioners should suffer in order to provide entertainment for the young. I do not consider myself to be a prude being under 50, however this type of program which causes hurt to others should not be broadcast by the BBC.
Complain about this comment
Of course two comedians (to give Jonathan the benefit of the doubt) mucking about in a studio will produce wild and often hilarious results. What I couldn't understand was how this example, being a recording, could have been subsequently broadcast.
Having read this blog entry, I now understand how it happened. It's not the 'talent' that's the problem. It's the producers. Maybe if they stopped being the leader of DJ's posse and went back to doing their job, this kind of thing would be less likely.
Rod, you're either part of the solution or part of the problem. I think it's clear from your ill-considered blog, you're the latter!
Complain about this comment
Thank goodness for a sensible balanced view in all this.
Yes they did a idiotic thing that pushed the boundaries of poor taste perhaps a bit too far and they should be rapped for that - (As well as whoever was there to control such content)and the BBC should also question that they did not see this early enough - but this matter would have raised nowhere near as much fuss if it had not been for sectors of the media pushing their own agenda against the BBC and certain personalities.
Remember that until the Mail on Sunday got on the trail - a whole week after the initial broadcast - only 2 people of the 2 million listeners at the time it went out on air felt a need to complain!
So does this mean I can retrospectively complain about something dreadful that my next door neighbour's auntie told me about that happened on tv/radio last year and get a similar result!
Yes there have to be standards in broadcasting and yes if I watch/listen to something that I feel steps outsides these standards then I should have the right to complain but bear in mind that of the 20000+ complaints that have come in, the majority of these people would not even think about turning into a Ross or Brand show as they know already that their sense of humour is not for them and they would probably find it offensive.
The BBC is funded by the public and therefore caters for all sectors of it, young and old, fans of safe humour and extreme humour - I don't like Songs of Praise or Last of the Summer Wine, or Eastenders, therefore I don't watch them and should therefore not feel the need or right to complain about them.
This matter should have been dealt with amongst the people directly involved. Fingers should have been rapped - guidelines perhaps looked at and tightened if necessary and then the matter put to rest. This is not a matter that should have cost anyone their job permanently - even the person at the sharp end Mr Andrew Sachs has stated that he did not want or expect that to happen.
It is interesting that a lot of the fuss, which Mr Sachs did not want, has been fuelled by his grandaughter (who rightly deserved an apology) making demands for sackings and giving interviews for which she has been hansomely rewarded.
The worry now is that because the BBC did not stand up against the tide of hysteria and horsewhipping, and has bowed to the pressure of a few (and in a country of millions 20+ thousand is still a few), every slightly un pc or 'edgy' presenter/show will be harassed off the air. Bye Bye Chris Moyles? Top Gear? Little Britain? Even the beloved Bruce Forsyth can hit near the mark at times. It will be a much sadder/blander watching/listening experience if so.
Ross and Brand will not lose their career over this. Like others before (Angus Deaton, Richard Bacon anyone?) they will carry on and be picked up by other broadcasters because they are talented, have something to say that a lot of the population wants to hear and because this is not a properley hideous thing they have done and been punished for - it was a crass error and it has been used to stage a witchhunt.
Complain about this comment
Ok the tallent decides to happyslap some old pensioner.. whats the problem?
If it makes him a sad old git it's his problem and who cares anyway?
Jonathan Ross is rich, famous and on tv that makes him more important than boring responsible people.
We should get rid of all the old responsible people, polititians, reporters, managers, courts, police, teachers, social workers.
Morals and standards are just how old people try to stop us taking the piss.
Still some of the old idiots are so stupid they think as long as they let us get away with stuff we won't burn them too.
Some are still awake and dont believe self expression is an excuse.
Complain about this comment
But its ok to broadcast radio shows where people are humiliated by ex-girlfriends live on air?, or asked to do some bizzare act to win a prize?. In the name of entertainment.
What is needed is understanding.
Yes it was wrong, it was foolish, and childish. Was it a crime?....no....it was done with intended good humour, it wasn't malicious, which is an important factor.
They made a mistake. What happend to allowing people to apologise?. It's sad to see people suggest that because they earn more than them, that they should somehow have far less leniency when a mistake is made. What difference does their salary make?.
So while doing their job, making a comedy show that delights many people, two people made a mistake, they apologised, yet I still see certain types of people asking for blood.
Get a life.
Complain about this comment
Having listened to the show on youtube, like 99% of the complainants have, I think the comments were in poor taste, some of it though was quite funny. But the ensueing hounding of Ross & Brand is equally in poor taste.
It just goes to show how powerful the news papers and TV media are. They have latch on to this story like a dog with a bone and will not let go until both Brand and Ross are gone.
It is a shame that performers that are paid to be edgy, after the watershed, are vilified when things go a bit pear shaped.
How many times does someone need to appologise for a mistake? It seems that any error from a public figure is made, then they have to grovel on bended knee to everyone, lose their jobs, and any prospect of gaining another one and generally become the subject of a public and humiliating media hounding before the next story is manufactured to create a headline.
Andrew Sachs in his interview has said enough is enough. He is right. There are more important issues than a stupid comment being blow out of all proportion to make a headline.
Question? Why on earth are MP's our religious leaders getting involved in such a trivial matter?
Complain about this comment
GeorgioMc
"I think to suspend Rossy is fair and as for Russell Brand - we wont see the last of him. They have to learn the value of self censorship, but of course what we should continue to champion is risky and edgy comedy just let us occasionally think before we speak!"
And you think that creating risky comedy comes without risk no doubt. How many people were offended by Pythons life of Brian when it was shown. Even now it is still offensive to 'some' people.
Yes it's agreed, a thousand times over, they made a mistake, an error of judgement, why the continued pursuit of these two 'normaly' risky but cordial characters?.
People need some perspective in life.
As usual with the british public, they are synthetically more offended than the actual victims.
Complain about this comment
Throughout the whole Brand/Ross saga I have heard many opinions, mostly from people who have been interviewed on TV saying that these two were stupid etc but that this situation is in danger of getting out of proportion, ie too much fuss about nothing. Certainly those of the younger generation interviewed, couldn’t work it out at all. ‘Hey it was just a joke”. You know the scary thing is that those young people really did believe that, and then you wonder, how on earth has a whole generation been raised, who are clearly so desensitised to the cruelty/spitefulness to another soul just for the laugh of it (this is a form of bullying and we are supposed to all have rights now aren’t we, or is that rights for some and not others) – and yet … anyone of them or others who say the fuss being made is too much, must have grandparents of their own.
If they visited those very same grandparents and discovered that an obscene message had been left making lewd comments about themselves or another member of the family, how angry would they be – or would they just say “oh don’t worry granny/grandad, it was just a joke, you know what a pair that Brand/Ross are”. I don’t think so.
Someone at the BBC really needs to understand (and I mean REALLY needs to) why so many people put in complaints even though they didn't hear the broadcast. It wasn’t spite or prudish behaviour – genuinely they recognise that it was unacceptable to leave a lewd message on an old man’s answer machine in the name of entertainment to the country. This is completely different to any comedian making outrageous remarks about another. People didn’t complain in their thousands because they were encouraged to by the papers or anyone else but because the mark was well and truly stepped over and it was about time people actually stood up and said this is just not good enough. It is just bad manners.
Complain about this comment
There is a basic problem here, and that is the difference between the public perception of what has happened and what is common in the studio itself.
I worked in recording studios for nearly 25 years, much of the work done for the BBC.
I am very aware of the "giggling schoolboy" approach to production that effects so much material. In the studio, there is no consideration of culture, of the public good, or even whether something has any point. I never heard any talk along those lines. It was ALWAYS, "What can we get away with."
That was it.
For as long as I can remember, the vast majority of broadcasters and producers and editors could not care less what the public thinks - thought they are very quick to say they do publicly.
Once the mic is off, the camera back in the box, what the celebs and their cohorts REALLY thought about their audience came out.
I should have bugged the studios - people would have been dumbfounded.
Thankfully, there are always the others - the ones who don't enjoy their celebrity status or wont be hijacked by it.
Andrew Sachs is a perfect example of someone who came into the studios and was quiet, professional and undemanding. Barry Cryer is another. Mark Knopfler on the music side was as easy as anything - just wanted to talk music. Kate Winslet (pre babies) came in for a voice over in jeans and jumper, and her only demand was could I make her a rolly ciggie (I trust she has given up now)
But the other side of the coin?
Rude, arrogant, selfish and often talentless.
Complain about this comment
It's amazing how the "older" viewers here are quick to condemn the younger viewers for not being outraged by all this and assuming we are all Saturday night binge drinking lager louts.
I happen to be fairly well educated have a good job and know the difference from right and wrong thank you very much and find these comments offensive! perhaps you should all lose your jobs?
The fact is it was wrong they have admitted this and apologised (apologies accepted also)
This should have been no more than a slapped wrist job, and I find it completely ridiculous that I have lost a radio show I loved to listen to because a bunck of PC Daily Mail readers have taken offence to something they haven't even listened too!
Honestly if it's a sad state of youth today because we don't find the comments a moral outrage it's an even bigger sad state of affairs in middle England where your all lead blindly by Piers Morgan and Co
Complain about this comment
#189 "But its ok to broadcast radio shows where people are humiliated by ex-girlfriends live on air?, or asked to do some bizzare act to win a prize?. In the name of entertainment."
If everyone who goes on air knows what they're getting into then fine. I've no problem with whatever stupidity consenting adults wish to put themselves through.
Sachs didn't ask to be called at home and have abuse left on his phone. Thats the difference.
Complain about this comment
Oh and for those people that are doubting the 6:1 stat I can happily direct you to about 5 or 6 different forums where my generation are completely disgusted by the treatment of these two and the overhype it is recieving!
Complain about this comment
"Yes it's agreed, a thousand times over, they made a mistake, an error of judgement, why the continued pursuit of these two 'normaly' risky but cordial characters?"
This is the problem: you describe Brand, an amazingly self destructive self confessed former crack addict, rabid womaniser (who has publically claimed to have slept with woman he hasn't), a man who the day after 9/11 went on MTV dressed as Bin Ladin, who's idea of stand up comedy is making 'prank' 999 calls and who has now been publically sacked by 3 major broadcasters for 'errors of judgement' as cordial!
If Brand has said what he said to the face of a guest who'd willingly come on the show I'd have had no problem. Andrew Sachs is 2 years younger than my grandparents and didn't ask for any of this.
What is worst of all is that Brand, 'Woss' and the BBC don't seem to understand where the line is either.
Complain about this comment
Thanks for telling me what Ross earns - now I know what he should be donating to charity; THE LOT. Russell Brand's never been my favourite person but he came out of this looking good. Mr Ross didn't. He's a foul-mouthed waste of space and to say he didn't apologise because he was going to issue an apology on his show confirms his other quality - arrogance. He thought he'd still HAVE a show!
Complain about this comment
"194. At 3:13pm on 30 Oct 2008, offpeggone wrote:
It's amazing how the "older" viewers here are quick to condemn the younger viewers for not being outraged by all this and assuming we are all Saturday night binge drinking lager louts.
I happen to be fairly well educated have a good job and know the difference from right and wrong thank you very much and find these comments offensive!"
peggone, you miss the point that it is not a matter of opinion. Making obscene phone calls is a crime.
In their calls they also suggested that they might break into Andrew Sach's house and sexually assault him. They also joked that he might kill himself with the shame.
There is something wrong with anyone who cannot understand why this was not legitimate matrial for broadcast, and it is very concerning.
This is EXACTLY why we get phenomenons like happy slapping.
Children should not be able to feel they are beyond the reach of authority whether teachers or police.
Send criminals to jail and dont give them community service. Build more prisons.
We are watching the disintegration of our society presided over those who think this sort of behaviour is a bit of a giggle and folks should lighten up, this is what these comedians do.
Complain about this comment
Good Lord this is so ridiculous and half the people complaining seem more upset about the salaries or personal lives of these comedians than what they have actually done
Andrew Sachs has himself said he is over this. If he is happy then why so much fuss from you lot
Has the daily Heil got you that under the thumb?
Yes they earn a lot of money that we pay for but they attract millions of viewers from my demographic, just because they are not to your taste doesn't give you the right to bombard the BBC with complaints and take somethign away from us so that will no doubt be replaced by more Titchmarsh (which offends my ears and eyes to be honest)
If you don't like edgy humour then switch over but don't take away something I enjoy jsut because your jealous they earn a salary
Did it occur that part of the reason we are seeing so much pro BAN on this thread is because a lot of my generation are working at this time of day?
Complain about this comment
Let me get this right... everyone is up in arms because something tasteless was done to someone who has dined out for over thirty years on a tasteless, racist and bigoted portrayal of a foreigner designed specifically to appeal to the xenophobia and ignorance of the times?
Well if that’s the case we need to order a slice of hypocrisy cake to go with that big steaming cup of self righteousness please!
In-bred-villager-mob-chasing-non-existent-beast mentality is in full effect!!
Complain about this comment
It's quite sad that todays youth think that making an illegal phone call to abuse an old age pensioner and his granddaughter are acceptable. I suppose it reflects todays 'yob culture' who have no discipline or respect for other people. It is even sadder that the BBC encourages this behaviour by broadcasting shows such as Russell Brands.
Also, Radio1s audience are not the target audience for radio 2, so other issues aside, why where radio 1 audiences asked their views when the majority wouldn't listen to radio 2 anyway?
If the BBC wants the 'youth' audience to listen to this type of show, why is not on radio 1? It is very obvious that a show aimed at a young audience is going to get thousands of complaints if it is broadcast to an older more sensible and disciplined demographic. The biggest mistake the BBC have made is by putting this show on radio2 in the first place.
Complain about this comment
The reaction of the young might be tempered if they had to finance these two twerps (combined age 80) and their antics. Yes ask the R1 audience if they would care to fund it rather than us oldies. I think that most young people would not want to fund them like most older folks. The BBC is just latching on to excuses - pathetic. This is a reflection of how ill educated and immature the BBC is - stereotyping and scapegoating at the same time to save its own skin. Perhaps we should ask R1 audience - is it fair that Mr Dross gets £153,000 per week and he he pays £130 pa for the BBC, just the same as the unemployed man on £80 per week, who watches ITV/Ch4 all the time. Now that would be interesting. Perhaps if we educated young people about the poll TV tax then they would not be too happy.
Complain about this comment
I am really unhappy about the decision for brand and ross to leave the bbc. I love russell brand.
I feel they have been ill treated and i personally am prepared to make a stand for it.
Join the facebook petition which will be going to all major newspapers to actually show the number of people who support the two comedians !
I think a public apology was all that was needed. its pathetic gorden brown has had to mention it in parliament.
I didnt really see it as anything but a joke.
Bring them back !!!!
Complain about this comment
"Send criminals to jail and dont give them community service. Build more prisons."
ah excellent the sort of person where everything is black and white and there is no grey, suppose you've never done wrong?
Must be nice being perfect, can't be too good having no imagination though!
As for what they do beign a crime, if it was extremely obscene then fair enough but if you listen to the context of the words said you would realise that it's all made out as a joke, somethingthat i'm sure Sachs as a comic actor would be well aware of
Lets not forget Sachs made a career out of playign a stereotypical Spanish waiter, but I'm sure that never caused offence in the Spanish community
Complain about this comment
Blog Bag
a) I do pay a TV license so I am paying them and happy to do so - I'm not so happy to be paying the wages of Titchmarsh but I can't have everything Iwant as I understand they have to cater to more than just myself, maybe you should also realise this!
b) Will you please stop treating all young people as idiots, your stereotyping is extremely offensive to me
c) The target audience for Brand and co will be students - 35/40 year olds these are all License paying people so please get off your high horse!
Complain about this comment
'200. At 4:12pm on 30 Oct 2008, offpeggone wrote:
Andrew Sachs has himself said he is over this. If he is happy then why so much fuss from you lot...
...Has the daily Heil got you that under the thumb?...
...If you don't like edgy humour then switch over but don't take away something I enjoy jsut because your jealous they earn a salary..
Did it occur that part of the reason we are seeing so much pro BAN on this thread is because a lot of my generation are working at this time of day?'
peggone:
(1) I read the Guardian
(2) The Guardian has also covered and criticised the disgraceful behaviour by Ross and Brand
(3) I do like edgy humour. eg I love Mock the week, though sometimes Frankie Boyle mades comments that just simply should not be allowed, eg his repetitive bullying of Kerry Katona (I am certainly not a fan of Kerry Katona!)
(4) You seem to categorise everyone who doesnt agree with you as being from another generation. There are plenty of us in the younger generation who feel Brand and Ross should be sacked.
I like Ross and would miss his programmes, but that doesnt mean he doesnt deserve to be sacked, and that he shouldnt have been reprimanded more severely for some of his comments long ago. I will also miss some of Brands less obscene behaviour, but he quite rightly resigned.
Chris Moyles should have been sacked long ago for some of his comments in my opinion.
What to do you feel about Chris Moyles' campaign of bullying Nicola Roberts from Girls Aloud over six years for which he recently apologised when she finally spoke out?
Complain about this comment
At 57, I guess I'm not part of the "younger" audience but I'd challenge the assertion that opinion is divided between age groups.
Whilst not condoning the harassment of Andrew Sachs, I feel sorry for Russell Brand because I think he's very genuine and meant no trouble by this silly prank that went too far. Unfortunately the scum newspapers will pick up any story they think they can hammer the BBC with and sell a few more copies.
However, Jonathan Ross, no youngster himself at 47, should know better. He has a big ego and he deserves a dressing-down, possibly the sack but certainly a hefty pay-cut. Nobody deserves millions of pounds per year. He spends most of his chat show talking about himself, flirting with the female guests and trying oh-so-hard to be "in" with people young enough to be his children. The fact that Russell has resigned must surely put pressure on him to follow suit.
But then what about the producers? Ultimately, the buck stops with them.
Russell will earn people's respect for having resigned and I hope he's wrong about never working for the BBC again.
Complain about this comment
"What to do you feel about Chris Moyles' campaign of bullying Nicola Roberts from Girls Aloud over six years for which he recently apologised when she finally spoke out?"
Personally???
I can't stand Chris Moyles or his behaviour so do you know what I do?
I don't listen!
Complain about this comment
"205. At 4:18pm on 30 Oct 2008, offpeggone wrote:
As for what they do being a crime, if it was extremely obscene then fair enough but if you listen to the context of the words said you would realise that it's all made out as a joke, somethingthat i'm sure Sachs as a comic actor would be well aware of"
Just because it was done for the comic entertainment of themselves and their audience, that is no justification for making obscene telephone calls. In the context of a 78 year old man receiving those calls it was extremely obscene - go and take a look at the video clips on you tube if you have not seen them. And that is after some of the more obscene comments that Sachs was subjected to were edited out, and the full transcript showing these has been published in left wing as well as right wing newspapers.
There was no way anyone should have ever thought it was OK to phone up a 78 year old grandfather and threaten to break into his house and sexually assault him.
Take a look at this story from the press this week, is it funny? Would Ross and Brand have been funnier if they had phoned up this woman and threatened to break into her house and assault her?
Public right to think system's 'mad'
A judge has slammed Britain's "soft" sentencing rules after admitting he was powerless to jail a burglar who terrorised a pregnant mother.
Recorder Shaun Smith said the public was right to think the legal system was "mad" after he had to let the intruder walk free.
Leicester crown court heard how Dominic Wong battered his way into Safa Moustafa's home and stole cash while she hid upstairs with her two-year-old daughter.
But because the crime was 20-year-old Wong's first burglary offence, Recorder Smith had to hand him a community sentence.
Sparing him jail, he told Wong: "The public must think we have all gone mad or soft. This is sentencing by numbers.
"I want to send you to prison. The public want to see you to go prison. But I can't send you to prison because of the guidelines I have been given."
Complain about this comment
For_Brand - you are chilling me out really - "I didn't really see it as anything but a joke"
Joking to your public that you intended phoning up an old man and verbally abusing him with sexual innuendo about himself and his family, might .... in some circles I guess, have been considered amusing.
Actually doing it, live, and using it to make your audience laugh is sick, very sinister, and as has been said already - illegal, ie a crime.
To PaulM143 - "tasteless, racist and bigoted portrayal of a foreigner designed specifically to appeal to the xenophobia and ignorance of the times?" He was acting love, not real life! - and the world over different nationalities have done the same thing for generations having their favourite nationality to take the mickey out of.
Complain about this comment
OK, this isn't just about old people vs young people with a more "edgy" sense of humour.
A few years back I was on a train at night when three big, agressive lads decided to ridicule and humiliate the ticket collector. I was too scared to get involved at the time.
Now they thought they were being very funny. They thought it was comedy. I didn't find it funny. But this was not a matter of taste. It was wrong because it involved bullying a private individual who did not set himself up for the bullying in any way.
What's the difference? There's no difference. If you can't see that, you need to take a look at yourselves.
Complain about this comment
'209. At 4:46pm on 30 Oct 2008, offpeggone
Personally???
I can't stand Chris Moyles or his behaviour so do you know what I do?
I don't listen!'
Well done for saying so offpeggone. I used to enjoy listening to the breakfast show, but over time got more and more fed up with Moyles behaviour.
I also now rarely listen. If he was sacked, or better, just brought back in line so he stopped making these ridiculous insults to people, and quit his bragging about being the self-styled saviour of radio 1, he may be even more popular, and if so, good luck to him.
I feel he is another accident waiting to happen and will end up going the same way as Russell Brand and Chris Evans did before him if he is not reprimanded for his behaviour.
Complain about this comment
regardess of whether the comments should have been edited out or not, the fact is that this prank was carried out by the 2 individuals concerned, and they have to be held responsible. There is no doubt in my mind that these two are employees who whave committed an act of gross misconduct and instant dismissal would the correct action at the time of the offence. I personally would like to see both men fined a total of a year's salary form the BBC and prevented from any contact with the BBc for a period of at least 10 years. Any others who wish to carry on in such a mindles way, and feel they are above the standards of common decency should be likewise treated. They have brought the name of their employee into disrepute, and as such have committed acts of gross misconduct.
Complain about this comment
Mattfromsmethwick - Shame on you you should stand up for what you believe in not hide away scared if my grandparents did that we'd be living in a very different world right now
I'm not debating the actions to be right, they are clearly wrong however what I am saying is that they have apologised and had that apology accepted, ie the people offended have been apeased, what business is it of yours to stir up more trouble when those who suffered the offence aren't looking for further action
So your scared to confront bullies abusing someone face to face aggresivley but happy to attack two apologetic comedians one of whom has already had to leave his job?
Complain about this comment
So Lucemorals, some forms of publicly broadcast offensive behaviour are OK by you and others are an outrage? To understand you further; a scripted, pre-planned and prolonged (almost 5 years start-to-finish) affront to an entire nation is far more excuseable than the unscripted 15 minutes of a one-off 3 hour radio show?
Wow. You clearly think you have standards- I just hope you think you know which set of the two you maintain you are supposed to be sticking to at any given moment. Your re-packaging of hateful stereotyping and xenophobia as "taking the mickey" out of people different to you is odious and foul irrespective of the circumstances.
Complain about this comment
An open and shut case? Yes, without question. The opinions of the younger viewers/listeners you refer to as thinking 'it was funny'/'get over it'/'nobody died' are almost entirely irrelevant, because they are:
a) unlikely to be licence fee payers, and therefore not paying the salaries of the two culprits;
b) sadly, the products of a society that has fully signed up to the warped and puerile view that 'for a laugh', anything goes;
c) immature - as in not having had enough experience to understand that such 'pranks' can cause unspeakable misery to victims;
d) clearly too uninformed to know that these calls broke the law - and WHY such conduct would be a sacking offence in any other publicly-funded body;
e) part of the generation to whom those older and supposedly wiser celebrities have signally failed in setting examples of acceptable behaviour;
f) as is usual with the inexperienced, they have viewed the matter only with concern for how it will affect them, and have failed to give consideration to the wider effects on other individuals and society as a whole...
so in what sense are they equipped to judge?
It pains me to say 'they're too young to have learned better' before reaching my 30th birthday, but I'm afraid it's the case. They need to learn the painful lesson that, as Diderot said, 'There is no moral precept that does not have something inconvenient about it.'
Complain about this comment
Chilled1
I can see what your saying but neither Brand or Evans have ever suffered for being sacked by the BBC all that will happen is another broadcaster will pick them up and offer them just as much cash and they will still get the same number of viewers so it should never be seen as a victory of anykind
Interesting that the Sun owned by a famous Media tycoon is getting behind the sack Brand/Ross bandwagon, ironic when there next line of work will probably be sky and a higher salary!
I just can't see why anyone feels it needs to go this far both have dished out heart felt apologies but that's not good enough apparently, PC Britain is taking over and every day I wonder what I am doign wasting my time here!
Complain about this comment
Rod..
You need to brush up on your journalistic skills. You use phrases such as "the prime minister's intervention amazed some listeners" and "David Sillito's excellent piece of news.." apparently illustrating the differences between the older and younger generations' views!!
The truth is it's you, Rod, who pretend "people are amazed" as the word amazed is your addition. If the same "people" are not bothered by Ross and Brand's antics they are hardly going to be "amazed" by Mr Brown's intervention.
Also, the words "excellent news" can never, ever be in the same sentence as "vox pop". Vox pop is an edited sequence of quotations that merely shows the bias of the journalist who produced the vox pop. The word for that is propaganda, not "excellent news". You should realise your audience are now more aware of these things than you are, Rod.
The 6 to 1 majority of young people who are in favour for swearing at and bullying 78 year old men are the same majority who would vote for under age sex, under age drinking, free drugs for everyone and the abolition of schools. Who would you rather have making decisions, Rod, this insensitive and immature majority or the real majority - the license payer who knows that foul mouthed bullying and humiliation are not the way to behave.
A suggestion...ring one of the 6 to 1 majority, swear at them repeatedly and make sexual remarks about their mother while goading them into committing suicide. Then ask them if it's funny!
Rod, go back to writing horoscopes or something. You are too transparently a friend of the foul mouthed bullies.
Complain about this comment
re 212. Mattfromsmethwick
Completely right, and well said. There cant be many of us who have not been in similar situations and not felt able to intervene.
A student mate of mine was attacked by a gaggle of schoolgirls who just kept taking the mick out of his blond hair and kicking him in the shins as they surrounded him and harassed him all down the road. No one did a thing to help him.
He was a strong lad, and a nice one too, and didnt deserve it, and did nothing to warrant it. He also did martial arts, but couldnt lift a finger as he would have ben for it if he had hurt one of them.
I remember an case in the last few months where two police officers were pelted with stones and injured by a gang of kids. Again, what can they do against kids who think they are untouchable, and under court guidance, pretty much are.
The BBC is not solely responsible for this lack of respect in society, but in supporting this Brand of humour, it must take its share of the blame.
I am relieved the public is speaking out at last, and hope the BBC act decisively. They shouldnt stop all edgy humour, but edgy doesnt mean it has to pick on people and abuse them. That is not comedy it is bullying pure and simple.
Complain about this comment
Quiet Tillings
If you actually believe any of that dross you have just written then YOU are the type of thing that is wrong with modern Britain!
Anyone under 30 hasn't a valid opinion? Really? I know many under 30's who have more life experience and inteligence than many over that age
Anyone between 20 -30 pays a license fee, I recommend you pull your head out of your ar*e
Complain about this comment
To those saying 'there are more important things going on in the world' - well of course there are. Just as anyone who watches or listens to Ross or Brand could be doing something more useful with their time instead. It's no real argument. If we take that stance then we may as well not discuss anything about the way the BBC is run, because other issues are always more important.
Ultimately, the Beeb's audience don't have control over earthquakes or global misery, but we are (supposed) to have some control in the way the BBC is run. With the advent of ICT tech audiences can express their opinions very easily now.
However I don't think it's as easy as a 'generational divide' - a significant minority of youth didn't approve of the broadcast (apparently 1 in 2 didn't approve until politicians got involved).
I would guess that youngsters who have been bullied themselves via the internet or mobile phones, will be less sympathetic to Ross and will find it less than funny.
Complain about this comment
re #215 offpeggone
'they have apologised and had that apology accepted'
If you actually listen to what Sachs said he is just trying to stay out of it quite fairly and doesnt want any more attention. I dont believe for one moment he accepts their apologies and am sure he is infuriated but he is too much of a gentleman to say so. If you listen to interviews he has given he clearly feels they have let themselves down and must do better in future. His comments have been guarded, but the underlying sentiment is unmistakeable.
Their apology to the viewing and listening public has not been accepted because they have obviously been so insincere. They made a joke of apologising to Andrew and then made morre obscene comments and calls during the original programme.
Everyone can see that the only reason they are looking more contrite in the last few days is that they have seen the public backlash to their abuse and insincere apologies, and are now frightened for their careers.
They are contrite because it looks like the audience have hit them where it hurts....their pockets.
Complain about this comment
Who is in charge of Radio 2?
Surely he (or is it she!) must take responsibilty fior vetting this peurile program before it was broadcast??
I think that Brand going is for the best, and Ross should fall on his sword, closely followed by the controller of Radio 2.
Then we can all get on with our lives!!
xx
Complain about this comment
"Brand of humour"
Well Chilled one thing we can all agree on is that you shouldn't be lined up as either Russell or Wossys replacement ;-)
Why has this turned into an attack the young thread, this pigeon holing of us all is uncalled for we are not all drinking cider in the park whilst taking drugs
In fact I can think of enough unsavoury older people that are just as bad as the young
half the problem here is your all happy to moan behind your PC's but how many of you get up and do something to change this country
You should all be ashamed sitting their with you goody two shoes attitudes
Complain about this comment
re #222.Bloofs
well said.
Complain about this comment
I thought it would be easy for me to comment, but I'm too stunned by how many people have picked up the flaming torches and pitchforks and are marching down the road demanding Ross and Brand's heads on stakes.
I implore anyone who doesn't want to see Ross and Brand thrown to the mob to be as vocal in their support of them as those that oppose them. Speak up now as if you don't, the battle will be lost without a fight.
Complain about this comment
RE 215: offpeggone
I agree with you offpeggone, shame on me for not getting involved in the bullying incident I witnessed. I was a skinny 18 year old at the time and I was scared to get the kicking that i am sure I would have got. But I didn't react and that still made me a coward. I am in my thirties now and I know better how to handle myself, I have got involved in a number of situations since and have learned a bit more about becoming a responsible member of the community.
But anyway, what's that got to do with the point I was making?
It's got nothing to do with the point I was making.
What was your point then?
Complain about this comment
The issue here isn't age or attitude. Simple question has to be "Would you agree with Brand and Ross doing to a member of your family what they did to Andrew Sachs?" I think the answer in almost all cases would be no.
The reason this is running as it is doesn't stem from the stance the Daily Mail has taken. It is partly because the target of their idiotic actions is popular, but I suspect it is mainly because of the initial reaction of the BBC and of the two presenters. The BBC because of the inane comment that " we haven't had any complaints" - implication being that if something is tasteless but no-one complains it must be OK.
Ross because there has still been no (reported) public acknowledgement of whatever contrition he may be feeling. At least he did apologise to Andrew Sachs which must count in his favour.
The real problem for everyone who wants this to go away without rocking any of their lucrative applecarts is Brand. He has reportedly twice told BBC bosses that he also had apologised to Andrew Sachs - only for Sachs' Agent to report that they had had nothing from him! He then issued an "apology". But if you listened critically to what he said he didn't actually apologise to Andrew Sachs for anything. What he actually said was that he hadn't anticipated that there would this level of reaction to his "prank" and he was very sorry for that: of course he is sorry - it has cost him his job and he probably isn't in the running for a Sony Award this year!
This will run until the BBC accepts that they have a responsibility to all its audience and also to its licencepayers. That will require some winnowing of senior management.
One interesting aspect of this - the justification for Brand's "edgy" 'humour' being allowed by BBC management is "to attract a younger audience to Radio 2". And it is the "younger" audience who supposedly doesn't understand what all the fuss is about. However, who pays for all BBC Radio? Answer is it is the licence payer - and the demographics for these are "more mature". The "Yoof Market" doesn't in the main watch TV - and if it does it is more likely to be via the Net and no-where near what the BBC generates. So why the pre-occupation with the "Yoof Market", other than the desire to be able to go to big bashes like the Sony Awards?
Of course, if you subscribe to the "Daily MAil is reponsable for everything" mindset you may now be waiting for the assassins to take out Brand!
Complain about this comment
Re: 225 Offpeggone
OK offpeggone, I agree with you here. This is not about old vs young. Many young people stand up against bad behaviour and wrong doings much more than their elders would. Ross isn't a young guy by any stretch of the imagination.
So let's agree, bad behaviour is bad behaviour, wrong is wrong. And if any of us want to complain about it, we have got the right to do that. And let's go on from there to change things for the better. Maybe comment on some of the other issues out there, bigger issues, while we're at it.
I'll see you at the next demo offpeggone.
Complain about this comment
Shocking.
Lesley Douglas gone.
Yet another show of a complete lack of cojones from the BBC Trust.
They should have backed her to the hilt.
Just as Pauline Neville-Jones shafted Greg Dyke, someone has shafted her.
Abject craven surrender.
Complain about this comment
#225. offpeggone
"Why has this turned into an attack the young thread, this pigeon holing of us all is uncalled for we are not all drinking cider in the park whilst taking drugs"
The fault is entirely down to Rod McKenzie and his infuriating article
"half the problem here is your all happy to moan behind your PC's but how many of you get up and do something to change this country"
Well, complaining to the BBC, ofcom and the newspapers and contributing to these blogs on the need for action will hopefully be worthwhile and precipitate a change in editorial policy which will benefit society.
The controller of Radio 2 has resigned and the Director General accepted it, and a good thing too.
Complain about this comment
#221 - offpeggone, you didn't read my last paragraph properly - I said before MY 30th birthday. I'm not yet twenty-five so would hardly be saying that no-one under thirty has a right to an opinion.
Those I refer to are like billbo9 #188 who says 'Jonathan Ross is rich, famous and on tv that makes him more important than boring respondible people' (sic) without pausing to consider that a boring responsible midwife helped him into the world, a boring responsible parent fed and reared him, a boring responsible teacher imparted the reading and writing skills he now uses so unwisely...
#188 - quod erat demonstrandum?
Complain about this comment
My point Matt is this
you can't compare 3 large chaps abusing someone and threatening someone to their face with no remorse to what Ross and Brand have done
They have apologised countless times for their actions and are generally very likeable chaps
Need I remind you that last month GMTV tried to judge current behaviours to helping your fellow man out when a woman appeared to be struggling with her bags
The only member of the general public that actually bothered to approach this person and help them
Russell Brand
But then I suppose you are one of these people that would just walk by and tut as they were in your way
as I said you are comparing apples with oranges makingyour point pretty much invalid
Complain about this comment
This article lists some of Ross' more inappropriate remarks. Its not as if the comments to Andrew Sachs are the first, even if they are some of the worst.
Many of these would be moderated if you typed them into this blog, yet the BBC saw fit to air them. Once the dust settles from this debacle I hope at the very least we dont hear presenters abusing their guests with offensive remarks like this again, for the sake of a cheap laugh.
Ross can be funny without needing to drop to this level.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/3286480/Jonathan-Ross-rude-lewd-and-crude.html
Complain about this comment
Yes, it is an open-and-shut case. You don't need to have seen the programme to know that what Brand and Ross did was contemptible. What's more, if they had the courage of their artistic convictions, they wouldn't be issuing craven apologies while, in Ross's case, doing his best to hang on to his nice little earner.
As for your own posting, I find it difficult to have much respect for anyone who claims not to be attacking or defending anybody while, at the same time, quoting texts and emails from young supporters of the show.
Complain about this comment
Having read the transcript, if it is any consolation to Russell, I blame Woss for bringing up the subject of Georgina and the swing, which ironically actually defamed Brand and led to the silly comments. I have usually found Brand to be sensible, funny and responsible with people. How could he continue to be funny on the radio after this?
Complain about this comment
Perhaps it's time for you to go too.
Complain about this comment
I don't normally reply to other people's comments but Ms OFFPEGONE needs to read Rod's article properly and seek counselling for paranoia. It is Rod's article that pitches the old against the young. Rod is just using a fake generation gap argument to muster up any faint support for the bullies he supports.
Now that I have put you on the right track, say something that adds to the debate!
Complain about this comment
I think it is just amazing how all this fuss about nothing with Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross, can lead to questions in parliament ,front page headlines, heads rolling all over the place!!!! What a load or rubbish it is. Who really cares what they said! I have not met one person who is "upset and destraut" as all the news channels are saying. (most people do not care) How is it in this country we make such a huge drama about this ..how about making the same sort of drama about say the National Health Service, Crime , the cost of Council Tax, THE COST OF FUEL,the near criminal cost of parking , do I need to go on!!!!
How many people actually listened to this radio programme? I just can not imagine being so upset that I would phone up to complain...I'd just change channels! There must be a lot of very sad, bored people with not much to worry about in there lives, is all I can think!
Complain about this comment
Rod, what a remarkably fatuous item you have written. It entirely misses the point.
Can you really not grasp that, as the victim of this was a 78 year old man, it is the feelings of mature adults (not youngsters) about this kind of conduct that matters here?
(Although, if it really is true that most young listeners think it's ok to leave messages on an old man's answering machine about breaking into his home to sexually abuse him, or "joking" that he might hang himself, then heaven help us.)
You look quite young from your photograph, so presumably you'll just dismiss me as an "old fart". In fact, I'm younger than Wossie and I am appalled by this sort of behaviour - as is practically everyone I have spoken to, in my age group and younger.
Complain about this comment
re 240 northshore 2111
You sound very upset and worried....rather like the "...very sad , bored people with not much to worry about in their lives..."
Did you realise you just posted a comment ridiculing yourself?
Complain about this comment
Now that Lesley Douglas has gone, are you still prepared to see the alternative view, Rod?
Complain about this comment
#239
Way to go, jctcjc!
Complain about this comment
re jctcjc
Guess you were one of the 30,000 huh!
Got an idea for you...compain to the BBC
Complain about this comment
No doubt Ross will spend the next three months on an expensive holiday, rather like Blair GRATIS via some sycophant - he will be cowed for a moment and then!!!!!
Please highlight the the fact that so few complaints may mean that the Ross demographic is not necessarily correctly assessed; And the tsunami that followed your exposure was the wake up call to the not so vocal majority, needed to realise what was happening to the worlds greatest broadcasting medium.
Ross and his kind are subtly (or not so subtlu) lowering standards and expectations so that he could assume an undeserved position and credibility.
He is employed by the BBC, he was working for a BBC program and still bound by the standards the BBC (we thought) had. The fact he was guest is not important
Why clumsy and momentary lapses in procedure should have cost employees their jobs and he get a slap on wrist and probably a free vacation somewhere I don't know. OH! I forget a resumption of the obscene salary!!!
Complain about this comment
The term "whitewash " springs to mind, a three months loss of salary is hardly a punishment of any magnitude. I suspect that the higher echelons of the BBC are hereby admitting that sadly an employee whose command of the English language is to say the least , basic, is now more important than the reputation of the corporation. Surely from amongst all the employed presenters, and there seem to be two for every programme, there are a few who can express themselves without recourse to obscenity.
Complain about this comment
JCTCTC
Well as a 27 year old MAN i like to think I still represent a young listener and am therefore adding my opinions on the matter and defending myslef from a num,ber of people on this thread who assume i'm into Heroin and premiscuous sex
Don't pit me against the author of the article scroll up and before my first post you'll find many post that go along the line of "this is the problem wit hthe youth blah blah blah"
This just isn't true and I suggest anyone that has this view on the youth of today needs to get out amongst youth a bit more rather than comment on the extremes that they witness on TV/papers which lets face it are always blown out of proportion
Faint support - nonsense! Do you want some links to forums that think this is the most absurd load of carp ever!
Or are you that out of touch with the real world that you believe everything that gets dropped through your door in the mornings by the local paper boy (who I imagine is probably still coming down from all the drugs and sex he had last night)
Fact is it isn't a minority it is 6:1 in fact everyone I have spoken too can't believe that it's been taken so far
P.S they are all university educated and aged between 20-40
I have yet to speak to someone face to face who agrees with these tabloid headlines the only people that are agreeeing are those who are sat at home all day typing on the internet
Complain about this comment
The majority of the country is over 35, a statistic that continues to rise.
Ross and Brand's actions were irresponsible and immature, but shouldn't have been broadcast.
Ross also made an error of judgment in intending to wait until this week's scheduled show to apologise.
However as Sachs has said he wants an end to it, Brand and Ross have apologised, that should be the end of it.
Ross should also have been given an enforced break from his radio show, and Brand suspended, rather than sacked.
It's a shame things have got to this stage, but face facts Rob and Radio 1 - the youth of the country are in a massive minority, on a lot of matters. Older members of society rarely have their voices heard, and this is one occasion where they have been listened to.
Complain about this comment
Just completed a spell check on NORTHSHORE and OFFTHEWALL, sorry...OFFPEGONE, and it took me half an hour to work out what they were attempting to say.
Both are on the wrong site...
..try msn you two!
Complain about this comment
Sorry, but matters of taste and common decency are not negotiable, you have them or you don't.
Ross I have listened to on a few occasions, long enough to walk over to the radio and turn it off. Brand I have not listened to at all, and probably wouldn't, based on what I have seen of him.
There is a generation gap on the issue, but both my sons (in their 30's) thought it was unnecessary and not particularly funny.
We shouldn't need to go to these extremes to make people laugh. If we need to go to these extremes in the name of comedy then the audience needs its head examining.
Peter
Complain about this comment
Re: 234 Offpegone
I don't know why you assume I would tut and walk on by when someone was struggling with shopping, I don't think I would but anyway, up to you what you think about that.
I am glad to hear Brand's a nice bloke, the point I was on about is that I am surprised so many people defend the "comedy" side of this, because it's just bullying and it's not funny. I still think, if you think it's OK, you need to take a look at yourselves, and that kind of attitude causes all manner of other problems. That's a bigger issue than what Ross and Brand got up to.
But anyway, that's what I think, that's probably enough about that, see you later.
Complain about this comment
Offpeggone, the fact that you haven't spoken to someone who disagrees with your view proves nothing but the fact that you chose your friends from a like-minded group, as do we all.
I'm younger than you (as I said earlier, but you haven't seen fit to correct your misunderstanding of my first post and your fairly abusive response, made while believing me to be elderly) but I haven't yet spoken to anyone in my peer group who finds the incidant anything less than abhorrent.
Andrew Sachs is 78, damn it, and his wife was, and remains, seriously ill in hospital... Ross should resign, and hang his head in shame. And so should you, for defending him
Complain about this comment
Matt
No one is saying it is funny (well I'm not anyway)
My point is it has been blown completely out of proportion
Apology was enough!
Complain about this comment
BTW, offpeggone, who said you were into heroin and promiscuity?
perhaps - dare I suggest - you might lighten up and get over it?
Complain about this comment
Well poor Lesley Douglas has gone!! What a shame!!
I guessed it would be her that had the final word on the programme.
I know there will be a huge sigh of relief as she goes out the door.
In my opinion, but what do I know, she has totally cocked up Radio 2 with Ross, Evans, Brand etc.
Complain about this comment
Firstly, let me say that a person who has behaved with absolute decency throughout all of this is Andrew Sachs. I'm sure he'll be as relieved as anyone once this storm has died down. Andrew, you're a top bloke.
Now it may surprise some of you, but I now want show my absolute support for Ross and Brand. Why? Because the mob mentality witch-hunt that we've seen over the last few days has been a truly disgusting spectacle - far worse than the original incident.
Here are some points I'd like to pick up on.
(1) Many people have said that they do not need to hear the incident in order to comment on it.
OH YES YOU DO! Otherwise, you are saying that you are willing to be led by manipulative media articles without establishing your own independent opinion.
(2) Many people have read the transcript rather than listened to the broadcast.
Again, not good enough. Comedy is a performance based artform. Reading the transcript of any stand-up performance, for instance, is not the same as seeing or hearing the performance itself.
(3) Was any mallice intended in the phone call?
No. The humour was mostly directed at Ross and Brand themselves for being childish idiots.
(4) Ross and Brand are childish idiots.
That's kind of the point. Who says comedy has to be intellectual?
(5) Comedy should not be offensive.
Causing mischief and offence is at the very core of comedy. Britain has a wonderful tradition of comedic trouble makers - Chris Morris, Kenny Everett, Peter Cook, Spike Milligan, Max Miller, Frank Randle etc etc. It goes back centuries. Comedy is not about being nice, it isn't about happy families and safe experiences. In the world of comedy husbands always hate their wives, wives always hate their husbands, aeroplanes run out of fuel and there's never enough parachutes. There is always a victim in comedy and most jokes will be offensive to someone. To suggest that there was once an age when comedy was somehow wholesome is absolutely wrong. It may not have been as apparent as it is now, with the interet and multi-channel TV etc, but filthy, offensive joke telling has been around for centuries and long may it continue.
Incidentally, remember the fuss that The Life of Brian movie caused when that was released? Wasn't that written by Andrew Sach's co-star in Fawlty Towers?
(6) "I like edgy comedy, but..."
The "but" word suggests that you don't really like edgy comedy at all. Not really edgy comedy. Not Jerry Sadowitz, Ian Cognito, Doug Stanhope edgy comedy. Ok, so those guys aren't on TV, but please don't say you're edgy when you're not. (Nothing on TV or radio is really that edgy. Go to a comedy club or a comedy festival for the hardcore stuff.)
(7) Andrew Sachs is 78, so therefore is more likely to be offended because of his age.
Not an absolute truth. My dad is the same age as Andrew and he's the filthiest joke teller I know. And I'd happily leave an offensive message on his answerphone, only he hasn't got one. But he would find it funny.
(8) "I pay my licence fee etc etc"
So do I. As an atheist, I'm not overly fond of Songs of Praise on a Sunday night. Do I wish to see it removed from the schedules? Not particularly.
(9) "I find this sort of behaviour absolutely disgusting and I have every right to complain."
Absolutely, you do. And I have every right to defend it.
(10) "If you like Ross and Brand, you cannot llike Fawlty Towers."
This is a really odd one that I've seen posted on a few forums. I love all of them. Fawlty Towers would probably be my favourite. But I don't see why the various elements invoved are mutually exclusive.
For me, this is no longer an issue about Sachs, Ross and Brand. This is an issue about a section of society who feel that they can impose their morality and belief systems on the rest of us. And my response is how dare they?
It seems to be true that the more healthy a society is, the more "offensive" material is allowed to circulate within that society. When a society becomes less stable, less secure, the more you'll find suppression. People become fearful of expressing whatever they want for fear of the reprisals. If so many people in this country can get so angry after a joke goes perhaps slightly too far, then it seems to me that we're in serious trouble.
Kitbag (40 years old and off to listen to a Derek and Clive album.)
Complain about this comment
offpeggone- These two presenters are way past the age where they can say "i'm sorry" and everything will be okay. Their first apology a mocking song which added further insult to injury. A cursory public apology from Ross and a contrived exit speech from Brand- that does not make amends.
It is understandable that you are upset because you're favourite show has been taken off. But Brand will appear somewhere else- so you haven't lost him forever.
What they did was undoubtedly wrong- and make no mistake if Sach's had pressed charges they would have been arrested. it was not only wrong it was illegal.
You have missed the whole point of the outrage- its nothing to do with witchhunts, bandwagons or the stupid Daily Mail (what the heck is the obsession with that useless rag?).
Russ and Ross can swear themselves blue in the face for all I care- because I don't have to watch or listen to them. But they deliberately harrassed someone who they knew before they recorded would not be available for interview. And they took revenge (on a 78yr old man)- there is a very clear arguable case for malicious intent here.
The obscenities, gross invasion of privacy, bullying and public humiliation of an old man is what sparked the outrage. the fact that the BBC is publicly funded gives the people the right to object strongly to this- and to question the $18 million of our money being paid to a 48yr old juvenile delinquent.
And lets not "blame the victims" shall we. What did Sach's do to warrant being victimized like that? very real harm was done. His granddaughter was also a victim, it doesn't matter what she does for a living, this was her grandfather those two louts taunted. I've no doubt the Sun and other red tops were waiting on her doorstep for her comment, but regardless how she deals with the situation now has no relevance on what was done to her.
Yes the recording should have been edited, but even if it had been. Those phone calls were already on Sach's phone- the damage was done- airing the show just added the public humiliation. Lucky for them, Sachs is not pressing charges- and lucky for them he didn't have a heart attack or something. His wife was ill in hospital at the time and he's 78 for gawd's sake.
Complain about this comment
#257 'For me, this is no longer an issue about Sachs, Ross and Brand. This is an issue about a section of society who feel that they can impose their morality and belief systems on the rest of us. And my response is how dare they?'
ABSOLUTELY, kitbag-42. How DARE those who have no care for the sensitivities of others railroad the NATIONAL public service broadcast we are all obliged to pay for, (even if we only use it to watch home-videos!) to impose extreme liberality, loose morality and legitimise law-breaking?
Dare I suggest that 'Songs of Praise' is probably more offensive to Christians for its wishy-washy middle-of-the road drivel than it could ever be to an atheist, but they aren't allowed to dictate the agenda for that programme - why should you believe you have that right?
'The more healthy a society is, the more offensive material it allows to circulate?' Piffle. Tell that to the Roman Empire.
It's precisely because Brand/Ross enjoy a huge youth following that they cannot be allowed to set such a egregious example and be seen to get away with it.
Complain about this comment
The BBC Trust has opened a consultation on how well the BBC provides for young people - including Radio 1.
Go to www.bbcyoursay.co.uk to make your voice heard!
Complain about this comment
JCTCTC Just who do you think you are? What gives you the right to judge me and others on this blog...yes I am a mere builder, and no I do not have a privileged education. BUT I am allowed m MY view. I can read other blogs on this site and agree or disagree with them. You on the other hand sit behind your PC ready to ridicule and offend who ever you do not agree with , how dare you!!!
I suggest you read my comment just a little longer. Like a lot of people, I have real problems to worry about, ...how about a wife and children to support with no work ...yes there are much bigger issues around at the moment. To me the whole Ross and Brand thing is completely blown out of proportion ...as for MSN JCTCTC I think it would suit YOU down to the ground , you would be able to bully all the thickos with your BIG words...
Complain about this comment
I understand that poeple are not impressed with what went on but and I agree it was out of order but. Get a grip. think of all the bad and oh yes good things that go on in the country and world on a day to day basis and how may editorial hours are spent on this?
There needs to be a sense of proportion here. they were naughty, they apologise, learn from and everybody moves on.
Its just another piece of crapogramming.
Its also so systematic of this country be a bit naughty and they condemn you forever and throw away the key. Kill someone and they give you a short sentence and tell not to be naughty.
I've wasted far too much of my life on this already
Complain about this comment
The 'younger audience' some of your posters mention, do they actually pay the licence fee?
Ross isn't a young person, he's in his forties and grossly, no obscenely overpaid for such a meagre talent, which mostly consists of innuendo [look it up kid] and smut, plus a heavy dose of 'look at me aren't I fabulous'.
Those under thirty defending these two yobs clearly have no sense at all of how to behave, of decency or of what constitutes bullying. The comparison with so-called 'happy slapping' is well made, this was disgusting behaviour that didn't just limit itself to the sad listeners to Brands brand of toilet joke humour, it included a criminal offence of making obscene and malicious phone calls. Anyone think they would have got away with doing the same?
Making out this is just humourless oldies moaning about the young is a simplistic idiot.
Ross is a loudmouth yob who got lucky, and how lucky! Got the BBC to hand over £18 million of licence payers money a year to him. That's a class conman act if ever I saw one.
If any of you actually paid a licence fee, you might be less supportive of these untalented pricks.
Complain about this comment
errr I don't think Songs of Praise was a good example to use in this argument, but thanks for the belly laugh..
Sooo you're father wouldn't take offence if one of your exes phoned him and demeaned you by telling him all the details of your sex life with them. Suggest he might hang himself and so on.... better give his phone number to Brand and Ross, then..I'm sure they could find that useful.
In fact all you who think this was no biggie and should be taken in fun- send your grandparents phone numbers to Ross...that way maybe innocent people won't be bullied and upset.
Complain about this comment
Just listened to Five Live News. It's the top story. You'd think nobody has been murdered in the last 24 hours, that nothing at all has happened in Iraq and Afghanistan, that the financial crisis no longer matters. All these things seem completely irrelevant. Now, he only thing that should matter to anybody is that a man who broadcasts on the radio and the telly has been suspended for three months.
I think who ever made that editorial decision should be sacked. Let them experience a financial crisis. Put them in the army and send them to Afghanistan or Iraq. Let them find out the real news and when they come back, let's see if they still think all of those things are of no significance so long as a man isn't allowed to speak and play songs on a radio station for three months.
Complain about this comment
I would like to ask Mr Brand and Mr Ross to publish their personal phone numbers and those of their nearest-and-dearest so that I can play a similar "prank" ( = obscene) call to their families.
I can assure everyone that the calls will be "funny", and that there'll be "no-harm-done" (!).
***
- I'm glad that one of the pair has left the BBC. Hopefully the other one will soon leave too.
It isn't so hard to see the difference between smutty/obscene behaviour and real humour -- or can young people not tell the difference nowadays ?
Complain about this comment
To Taffyles and QuietTillings
We're obviously never going to agree on this.
I'll make the point again that having listened to the incident, I don't think there was any mallice intended. I really don't.
And as for Ross and Brand promoting loose morals? Well, yes, I've always been one for loose morals. Always have been, always will be. When I was seven I loved the Sex Pistols. I loved all of the outrage it caused. I went on to love Crass and the whole of that anarcho-punk scene of the early 80s. You can tell the sort of person I am. You don't like me? Fine. But I have every right to be who I am.
I may be in the minority on this, but I'm not alone. Several petitions supporting Ross and Brand have been launched on the web. And my step-daughter has just phoned to say that she's just watched the clip on youtube and thinks it's hilarious. Bless her.
Complain about this comment
79 Rinsed thank you for that
As a young license payer I will be don't you worry
Yes thats right I am young AND pay a TV license apparently the two are mutually exclusive if you believe some of the bilge on here!
kitbag you make great points well done mate, not sure you'll ever get through to Quiet Tillings but I doubt he'll be happy till Brand and Ross are hung drawn and quartered
Fact is all your petty moaning will solve nothing BRand and Ross will get snapped up by some other major network and in 10 years when the BBC have nothing to entertain the 20 -40 age group it will have to close down as it's aging viewers slowly pass off this mortal world
Till then chaps!
Complain about this comment
wns_195, what on earth makes you think that this is an either/or situation?
I spent this morning packing supplies for the displaced in Congo, but I also care very deeply about standards in publicly-funded broadcasting. In general, people who care, care about lots of different issues.
Complain about this comment
...offpeggone, I'm likely to outlive you, as I'm both younger and female - so, by your definition, I'll still be listening to the BBC when you're gone.
It's a common tactic when losing an argument to start defending points that were never made. I don't want anybody hung, drawn or quartered - just made accountable, like us lesser mortals!
kitbag, since you can't spell malice, are you sure you would recognise it if it punched you on the nose? Malice may indeed not have been intended, but that's no excuse; the outcome was malicious.
By any definition, it is morally loose to call up an old man and leave a stream of foul language on his answering machine describing in graphic detail a sexual liason with his grandchild, suggesting suicide, and then to suggest that sexually abusing him might make him feel better - all because he was a no-show guest on your show because his wife had been taken to hospital.
I don't give a hang about your moral values - my money isn't paying your salary, and it won't be if they go to other networks; I don't object to them being paid millions, just not from my pocket. Furthermore, if you agree that you're in the minority on this, then it's simple - you lose. It's called democracy.
Complain about this comment
It seems to me that there is an overwheming majority of LICENSE PAYERS (yes there's more than just the miserable MINORITY) who think this whole thing has gone beyond the prank call and turned into a "we've always wanted rid of Brand and Ross and now its our chance to jump on the band wagon"mob. We are supposed to be living in a democratic society full of people who have their own tastes and own sense of humpur and most importantly their own CHOICES. I am appalled by some of the programmes that are shown on the BBC now but do I spoil it for everyone who enjoys watching that tripe? NO! I choose NOT to watch it, pick up my remote and turn the channel to watch one of the THOUSANDS of programmes on at that very same time! Why should I get my choice of entertaining and in my opinion funniest programmes reduced because of the miserable minority. BRING ROSS BACK NOW! I will just have to turn the channel to watch Russel Brand. I pay my (extortionate may I add) license fee and have done for years. He's paid so much becuase he is really good at what he does and the BBC don't want him running off to another channel so they lose millions of viewers on a friday night! I disagree with what Chris Moyles gets paid for IN MY OPINION a load of rubbish every morning but I don't care! Some people ENJOY listening to him and that is their choice! GIVE ME BACK MY CHOICES! If you don't like it, turn over! (sorry for all the capitalisations. I am a little wound up about it all!) They have apologised, they have been accepted, let it all go now and bring back the laugh i look forward to at the end of a hard week.
Complain about this comment
Brand already has other plans in the pipeline, don't worry. But since I don't contribute to the network involved and neither is it Royal chartered and a public service- I don't care. He's off to America isn't he??O r channel 4- or was he already sacked from there. The guy will make out like a bandit. He collects "sackings" so he doesn't give a toss either.
Again, "witchunting" had nothing to do with this. You just don't get it.
Hopefully the BBC will stop wasting money on wasters and invest in some of the excellent programming which it was renowned for.
More importantly impressionable youth will see that the gross misconduct of this pair has consequences. And indeed that it was in fact gross misconduct and not acceptable, and the "prank" is definitely NOT okay.
kitbag- why wouldn't I like you? And The life of Brian is one of my all time favourite films. Now that was cutting edge comedy which personally harmed no-one.
Most of the youth the BBC is, mystifyingly, targetting, will
a) have grown out of juvenile humour.
b) probably have children of their own to worry about.
by the the time their 40. Don't worry about the Beeb- it only gets into trouble when it lowers its standards.
Thank you to the DG for his actions today- that's what we wanted to hear. Ross sacked would have been better but maybe 3 months without pay will give him time to reflect.
Complain about this comment
QuietTillings
I also care very deeply about lots of issues. I am constantly appalled at the state of the world around me.
I guess the difference is that I have a very "sick" sense of humour. I have the most extreme sense of humour of ayone I know. I'll happily admit that a lot of what I find funny will cause offence to many, many people. Why do I like stuff that's so distasteful? I dunno. Maybe it's that sense of naughtiness. Childrens' first taste of comedy is often the first utterance of a dirty word. There's a wonderful thrill to that. Some of us never lose that. Does that make us childish? Probably. But I don't mind. I'm happy being who I am. I love it when me and my friends try to out-gross each other with the most disgusting stuff we can think of. I love that. And should that behaviour, that mocking, childish, disrespctful behaviour be allowed onto our airwaves? Well, for me, yes. For some reason I think it's very important. For me, it's how I cope with world.
My cousin doesn't understand my sense of humour at all. He would definitely be on your side of the argument. And that's ok. We get on really well, we know we're very different.
What I'm trying to say is that, because I adore offensive and sick humour (and I'm happy to describe it as that) I don't feel that that makes me a bad person. When I laugh at this incident I am laughing at Ross and Brand. I am not laughing at Sachs.
I pay for publicly funded broadcasting too. And I would love to see much stronger stuff on TV that currently gets broadcast. Thirty years ago Peter Cook and Dudley Moore were making albums that featured jokes about cancer and masturbating over dead popes (I'm old enough to remember those albums). I was hoping that society's acceptance of gloriously tasteless humour would grow. But the opposite seems to be happening and as a loose morals, anarchic kind of guy, with an liking for causing mischief, I feel the need to make my voice heard.
As for your comment on democracy, you're quite correct and that's the very reason why I do not consider myself a democrat. It places the views of the many over the rights of a few. Like the smoking ban, for example. I used to love a smoky pub.
I wish you the very best. I'll probably be off now. Getting tired. Time for a biscuit and a cup of tea.
Nice talkin' to everyone.
Complain about this comment
You wouldn't believe it, Kitbag, but we've found some common ground! I can also enjoy puerile and offensive jokes - but I wouldn'y dream of inflicting them on those that would be offended, that's the difference. Even Chris Evans - the enfant terrible of the nineties - has tonight said that this incident was neither funny nor acceptable output.
So enjoy your tea and biscuit; good idea - me too! Glad to have agreed on at least two points!
Complain about this comment
As someone living abroad, I must admit I do not have access to all the media/news coverage of the events resulting from the prank on the Russell Brand Show. I do listen to his program on BBC's iplayer on Monday mornings at my studio at work. I enjoy both Russell and Jonathon's work and will miss them both.
I do agree that the phone prank was in very poor taste and did not find it to be funny. I do not feel however, that either of them possessed a premeditated intent to cause harm to Mr. Sachs or his family. I think that a bunch of silliness went entirely to far, crossing a boundry that should not have been crossed. What I can not understand is as this was a prerecorded programme it was even allowed to air?
I have seen Russell's apology and resignation from BBC, and I do feel that it is sincere. Mr. Sachs also appeared to think so. I think he would also just like this to end and get on with living his life. I know if it was me and my family that is what I would want, not endless sensationalism from a media that thinks this is more important than the crisis our nation's financial institutes are in. The seeming inability of the worlds governments to show us that other than throwing billions into the system to make people feel safe there seems to be little done to prevent it happening or investigations into who is responsible for it in the first place. I have not seen them losing their overpaid jobs. Jobs are tax money are now bailing out.
Perhaps the tv licence fee should be scrapped. I think a subscription fee for people living abroad who would like to watch BBC programming might help or at worst case, lower the licence fee for those living in the UK.
Complain about this comment
I'm not a member of the young audience from Radio 1, I'm a retired headteacher, one of the bastion of stuffy middle class England. I prefer Radio 4 but the two shows I do (sorry "did") listen to on Radio 2 were Jonathan Ross on a Saturday and Russell Brand's late night show. I enjoy Ross and Brand whenever and wherever they broadcast.
What a palaver! So they take risks! So they got it wrong! I'm sorry for Andrew Sachs, less so for his granddaughter who maybe isn't as good as she ought to be; but all this fuss!?!
What makes me REALLY MAD is the part the newspapers played in this... slavering dogs who, as soon as they spot a weakness, howl and circle their prey until they can pull it down and tear at the carcass. Nothing is safe from their scavenging, hypocritical, immorality.
Thank God for the BBC!
Complain about this comment
Excuse me Downwith politics, but my work is closely related to the fields of both teaching and journalism. It's the duty of newspapers to highlight things that are going wrong within public service indusrties, including broadcasting - it's what they're FOR.
I've been vastly amused by both Brand and Ross in the past, too, but this wasn't a 'prank', as kad1967 terms it. It was an illegal act carried out while being paid from the public purse.
Complain about this comment
Hi QuietTillings.
Take care and maybe see you on these boards again some day.
You never know, we may even end up on the same side on quite a few issues. Hope so, anyway.
(Cup of tea was very nice, but partner had just eaten the last biscuit. Ah well...)
Complain about this comment
Absolute madness, the anti-BBC press jump all over the story, then the BBC make themselves a noose and throw it over their own necks.
Four things have come from this mess:
1. A career BBC employee has been forced from her job as a sacrifice to the complaining masses.
2. Brand has had to resign.
3. Ross gets three months extra holiday.
4. This Georgina woman has just gone on the short-list for the next Celebrity Big Brother / I'm a Celebrity.
Complain about this comment
Sorry but I am sick to death of Ross and his bad and disrespectful ways, you can't make comments like he does, with no apparent regard for anyone and get away with it.
Unfortunately two more people have lost there jobs because of him and his mouth.
How long do you keep putting up with him?
Complain about this comment
This is crazy. how the hell did the BBC allow this to get out of hand
Has any of the 20,000 who complained actually listened to R Brand I think not He is one of the cleverest comedians on radio. his use of English language is unique a mix of Essex slang with interlectual words.He makes fun of everything. Ross is a clever chat show host who doesn´t allow his guests to be prima donnas. For me Andrew sach´s stereotypical almost racist Manuel is more offensive Making the Spanish look stupid
Complain about this comment
Jonathan Ross has been handed the equivalent for us mere mortals of a weeks holiday...if that. I suspect that this suspension was brokered and they all think it will be buried and forgotten by mid-January.
Well, I for one will no longer be tuning in to any of his broadcasts ever again. Having heard the offending show in full I feel that he was by far the worst offender of the two of them and should be thoroughly ashamed. Unfortunately, having watched/listened to his shows on many occasions, I suspect that his contrition will be about as deep as a puddle. Perhaps we should all vote with our digits! If he no longer commands the audience figures then the BBC will have no alternative but to remove him from their employ!
I'm also still waiting to hear that the individual/s that made the decision to transmit the show have also chosen to resign. I might be slightly mollified if I thought there was any possibility they awoke each morning with the sickest of feelings in the pit of their stomach.
Mostly, I feel incredibly sad that such an intense public outcry was necessary in the first place. Whatever has happened to the moral values of our society, where this sort of behaviour is not just acceptable to some people, but applauded as entertainment; and where those of us that do stand up and shout 'foul' are condemned as puritanical zealots for doing so.
Complain about this comment
I must confess I laughed at the man getting bullied. Andrew Sachs was getting bullied and I laughed...
...and then I stopped watching Fawlty Towers.
Complain about this comment
Excuse me No. 281! I have listened to Brand and Ross on many occasions as I'm sure many of the 20,000 complainants are likely to have.
When it comes down to it nobody is really questioning their past performances in general, but do you honestly feel that being able to cross colloquial English with 'intellectual' words, or being a 'clever chat show host' makes it OK to do what they did?
And please don't compare classic comedy such as Fawlty Towers to todays celebdians unless you've done your homework. The humour was firmly directed at English attitudes towards foreigners and not, as you suggest, designed to denigrate the Spanish, Germans, Cornish, Welsh, Irish, Scottish.....blah...blah.
Complain about this comment
In the United States, such an incident would have probably been considered a commission of at least one, possibly two or more felonies. One for the way the telephone was misused for harassment, another for the way the public airwaves were misused. It would probably have been a violation of at least several FCC rules on both accounts. Both private lawsuits and possible criminal prosecution could have ensued. Several years ago, a woman bared her breast during the superbowl halftime show and I think the station was fined $250,000 by the FCC for it. They also received a warning. In Britain, evidently this is not taken nearly so seriously. It reflects the values of a badly degenerate society that it isn't. Also, BBC can act with hubris and virtual impunity as a government sponsored quasi monopoly. How far would BBC have to go to arouse the ire of those in government responsible for it? No change since the Dr. Kelly incident and the Hutton report in this regard.
Complain about this comment
I really do not understand the fuss. it's been blown out of all proportion. there's so much else to think about...
an interesting take here, tho
http://www.gentrystyle.com/lifestyle/in-defence-of-russell-brand-okay-and-jonathan-ross/
Complain about this comment
Brand Elbowed, BBC s R2 Shoved, Why does Big Mouth Ross not do the same thing, ? grow a pair of Balls, and Jump from the BBC, Always look on the bright side of life ! he aint on T V until Jan, now that is Nice
Complain about this comment
Surely the interesting thing is that so many of Radio One's audience DON'T SEE what's wrong with it.
I'm happy to defend freedom of speech and expression, and I'd much rather have some controversial comedians than not have them.
And I think that there has been an overreation against them, and the BBC2 controller quitting wasn't needed.
But its still pretty telling that the vast majority of young people don't see what is wrong with bullying and insulting an old man in public.
Maybe thats why walking down the street on Friday night can be so scary.. with so much bullying and insulting of people in public.
The press may have overreacted, but the fact that so few youths have any respect for others has rarely been so clearly demonstrated...
Complain about this comment
This report is very slanted toward Ross and Brand saying the majority were in favour and saw nothing wrong with the phone call made to Sachs. Has he read any of the +30,000 comments on the BBC HYS site or the thousands on HYS Virgin Media site. I would say the majority were not in favour of keeping these two persons on air or on TV. Also, he may make snide remarks about licence payers objecting to these enormous salaries, well Mr McKenzie, you are right there, we do object. It is obscene to pay individuals in excess of £600,000 for what they do with fees collected from licence payers. Ross especially, he is well past his sell by date. Knocking 50 and still behaving like a teenager. Certainly not an adult. But perhaps there are many of you of similar ilk. If you find this humour funny I think you are sick.
Complain about this comment
Joke is a joke but when it becomes personal insult against particular person it is no longer a joke.
Complain about this comment
Why is then BBC stil going on about the Ross issue. It's a storm created by a newpaper.
2 real complaints the rest manufactured by people getting on the band wagon after the event. Those who like that sense of humer listed 2 complaints the rest hear or read afterwards and made a noise what a reflection of the English people.
To listed to John Humphreys who has never come under any sort of complaint is amazing he shouls sort himself out before focusing on others.
The real complaint and you hear it time and time again is the amount Ross is being paid hence the attackes. This is a reflection of people jealousy.
No what was done was not right I didn't listen to it like most of the people who feel they should complain. But it's over leave it alone and get on with your lives.
As for the Politicians if this is so important and the credit issue is not then God help us all and lets be honest they have not been the quickest to respond to bigger issue ( Northern Rock) so who are they to make comment.
Complain about this comment
"Lets not forget Sachs made a career out of playign a stereotypical Spanish waiter, but I'm sure that never caused offence in the Spanish community"
Fawlty Towers is broadcast in Spain, but Manuel is Greek.
In any case you miss the point- Manuel is an idiot but a genuinely nice guy. The monster is the English Fawlty whos always screaming and kicking him.
Complain about this comment
politics view
1) these people are paid the going rate and in line with people on other networks, you can't say the BBC has to cap at £600K as all the good talent will just go to ITV C4 and the BBC will be left with nothing, it's called economics they are paid what they are worth
2) 30000 people complained if the ratio of those backing is 6 to 1 that means 180000 people don't see what the problem is, not that far fetched when Brands Radio 2 show pulled 700K listeners or when ross has 5 million loyal viewers weekly
30000 as a percentage of BBC viewers isn't actually that high especially not when only 2 of those were people that have actually listened
you can't have a view from the transcript by the way as half of the humour was in the delivery of the lines where it is apparent no malice is intended
Complain about this comment
"amazed that the prime minister got involved"
Let's get something straight.
The first time a party leader commented on it was when David Cameron stuck his oar in.
Perhaps if he hadn't been so keen to rally the blue-rinse Daily Mail brigade, none of the other politicians would have got involved.
Complain about this comment
To politicview.
You said "If you find this humour funny I think you are sick."
Whilst it seems that the majority of people probably find this appalling, there is a sizeable minority (myself included) who have looked at the clip on Youtube and found themselves laughing. I am not a part of the young generation of radio 1 listeners, but I do love comedy, especially comedy that is extremey black and tasteless. There is far worse material being aired every night in comedy clubs up and down the country.
You may not like it, you may disapprove and you may not understand my moral compass. But a lot of people posting (not everyone) seem to think that they in some way own the moral highground, which is what some of us object to. You do not speak for me. I have my own voice.
It's got to the point now that even if JR and RB had done something that I strongly objected to, I would find myself supporting them, simply because of the mob-rule element that seems to have errupted.
Complain about this comment
No question the whole sorry affair would not have been broadcast if the editors had done their job! they shoul bee held acountable & sacked. The BBC's reaction has been to little too late.
Complain about this comment
Excuse Me 284
I meant to say few of the 20,000 listened to this show. my comments are based on the fact that only two people complained after the show. I did listen to it as I do every week and felt the Joke was in poor taste. I thought the show with both Ross and Brand was the worst one I had heard because in my opinion both were trying to out silly one another and were speaking at the same time so it made it difficult to hear what was being said. Having said that the following show with Oliver Stone was one of the best. What Im saying is mistakes were made but´that doesnt mean you should sack them for one silly mistake In the same way I´m not going to stop listening because I´didnt enjoy one show. I feel I am being punished as well because I enjoy both Ross´s show on Saturday morning and Brand´s on Saturday eve not to mention Friday night with Ross
Manuel in Fawlty Towers was a negative model of Spanish people.The fact is when people wanted in those times to impersonate a spaniard they would think of Manuel and say ¨que?¨ Maybe The humour was firmly directed at English attitudes towards foreigners but it didnt help the with the attitudes of us towards them. Basil Fawty was really funny and i think it is correct that we should be able to laugh at ourselves however there is a section of British people who when in Spain think that Spain is full of Manuels and can act how they like blah blah...
I would like to point out I am not a young Radio 1 listener I´m 50 years old When I was young , people who listened to Radio 2 were my parents generation Radio 2 has to move on because it´s listeners tastes are based on what we listened to and enjoyed when we were young which was the 70s and 80s and 90s not the 40s 50s and 60s or at least widen it´s remit
Finally there have been a lot of comments about the press involvement in this. I agree with those that say we should´nt pander to this middle England censorship.
What has happended today is a sad day for British broadcasting
Complain about this comment
Having made a gesture towards taming people like ross. I hope that the BBC and every other broadcaster has a look at its alleged comedy output.
Very little of it is funny, certainly embarrassing, but that is not comedy is it!
Check out the salaries excise the foul language and toilet/insult humour and do a quick comedy check, simple one! "is it funny"?
Spend more on mature script writers and less on 25 year old writers with a penchant for humnour that would embarrassess some -> 16 year olds.
Complain about this comment
#293. Perhaps you can name ITV stars who earn 6 million a year for a half hour talk show and a weekend slot on a radio station?
Given the dire state off ITV they don't seem to have much talent at all. Incidentally the new Russel Brand series started last night on Channel 4 anyway so he hardly had an exclusive contract at the BBC.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
If the support is 6 to 1 in favour why is nobody reporting this. I have tried to leave a comment in support on the other blog "should they go" and it is not being published???
Why doesn't the bbc defend itself against this press hate onslaught. It would be nice if the country knew just how many people like and support them instead of just hearing the usual "my tax is paying for this idiot" nonsense!
How many listeners and viewers do they both get a week - lots more than 30,000 I bet.
Can we have some non biased news in this country please. Its not just Russell or Jonathan who are losing jobs and salaries.
Complain about this comment
Its Schadenfreude not schaedenfreude - very pedantic to write this, I know, but I'd expect you to get it right!
You would only put an e in the way you have if there was an umlaut (double dot) on the letter 'a' in the original German word and I can tell you there isn't one. Schadenfreude is a German noun meaning a pleasure in others' misfortune.
Complain about this comment
Actually, Peter Sym, when Fawlty Towers was shown in Spain, Manuel became Portuguese, not Greek.
Complain about this comment
It's stupid, Someone who is good at their job has resigned. The resignation shouldn't have been accepted and she should have been told to sort the matter in house and then report to the trust.
Trial by media accomplishes nothing.
Complain about this comment
#299
He also does film 2009 and is a very good film critc + numerous one offs for film specials etc
£6m a year well i'm sure Cowell probably gets about that for less work on the x factor, didn't Parkinson leave the BBC for ITV as well so there is history of this happening
Do you want quantity or quality is the real question, Ross and Brand are two of the most loved entertainers about at the moment. Maybe not by you but viewing figures don't lie
By the way if you watched ponderland last night well done, it was pretty damn funny
Complain about this comment
We have some very talented young people in the media, but why do some of them find the need to resort to 'shocking' with poor content to gain laughs. Little Britain and Catherine Tate, both of whom I find amusing, have fallen into this trap on occasions, and I wonder if they would be happy to stand in front of their own families - offspring/elderly included - to perform some of their more risque material and raise anything but a nervous laugh. Jonathan Ross has on occacasions had someone else in the studio whose sole purpose seems to be to laugh at just about any comment which comes out of his mouth, funny or not. This isn't talent.
A comment recently made was that the BBC is there to serve the audience, but those in control should remember who pays the licence fees and therefore the salaries of all those employed.
Complain about this comment
OK.they were in the wrong..a joke that went too far and caused some offence to the people involved. They apologised. Case closed.
What gets me is the fact that only 4 people complained at the time and now 30,000 have logged a complaint. How many of them are actual listeners? Or have they been inspired by certain papers going all out with ridiculous ideas like "Manuelgate"??
Now all the true fans of Brands show are deprived of pure comedy while the moaners go back to middle age.
I'm especially looking forward to seeing the girl involved in all this grace our screen on some D-List celebrity reality show next year.... If I was truely that upset about my private life being spread across a nation. My LAST thought would be to run to The Sun and pose in my undies!!!
Ballbags
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Just how scary is it that in about the clearest, vilest imaginable case of mean, bullying, offensive conduct by a pair of BBC presenters ... the one guy who seems to think it wasn't so bad, that we should chill out 'cos the kids enjoyed it, that the criticism is largely due to "salary envy and schaedenfreude"(sic), is Rod McKenzie: the guy that the BBC has in charge of editing news output for younger listeners???
Complain about this comment
#303. Maybe he was Greek in Italy? I do know his nationality changes in each S.European country its aired in.
In any case the point that the Spanish can hardly be offended by it when they do the same to their neighbours is valid as is the point that the worst character by far in the show is John Cleese.
Complain about this comment
Why do we keep hearing about the 30,000 that have complained why haven't we heard a figure on those supporting Brand and Ross
Another case of youth losing their voice, I noticed that Radio 1 the voice of the young people have been told to not comment on this matter
It's disgraceful I want to see what support these guys are getting right now! I know it's plenty from the numerous blogs I've se nand the fact everyone I know including my own mother (in her 50's and a Brand fan) has complained to the BBC so far that this has gone too far
Complain about this comment
#305 "6m a year well i'm sure Cowell probably gets about that for less work on the x factor, didn't Parkinson leave the BBC for ITV as well so there is history of this happening"
Simon Cowell makes his money from exploiting the record buying public not from X-factor. Indeed its produced by his own company so he effectively pays himself.
The Parkinson show did far less well on ITV than BBC and at least from a viewers POV why should I care if Ross is on ITV or BBC? If it want to watch him on ITV I'll press button 3 and he can earn his money from advertising rather than from the already vast licence fee. As a public broadcaster funded by the public I don't see why the BBC should be so concerned with ratings.
What I can tell you is that if Ross & Brand had been on a commerical station both would have been sacked by now. Brand should know- 2 commercial stations have aleady sacked him.
"By the way if you watched ponderland last night well done, it was pretty damn funny"
I did and it was, at least for 15 minutes. Russel Brand only really has one joke- himself- and there's a limit to how long you can keep laughing at him. 10.30 on channel 4 is the perfect place for him, not Radio 2.
Complain about this comment
How pleasing to see a range of opinion on here that doesn't follow the news agenda of the Mail so sheepishly. If anything has offended me from the BBC this week it is a lack of editorial courage and critical engagement with the hysteria-inducing newspaper which is such a poisonous feature of our national life.
I wonder if anyone would be able to tell me, or how I might find out, whether the Brand Ross stuff was the most complained about BBC programme/item on the night in question? Just out of curiosity
Complain about this comment
Brand and Ross affair has raised some fundamental question about sustaining BBC and the parasites working in IT. We are forcibly Taxed. It is like a poll tax that we got rid off. (we should initiate poll tax like agitation to bring home people's concern to our political masters).
I totally object to this payment. Sell off BBC and make it optional for people to subscribe for it OR not!! I bet BBCwill go bust within 6 months.
Brand and Ross episode clearly shows how many people in this country object to paying for the fat cats working for BBC. This is not the end of the story. People have discovered their power.
Is it not funny that jokers in our country can command 6 million pounds a year salary and our bread butter manufacturing industry is going to the drain and people who work in it cannot earn even one hundredth or fraction of it? To add insult to the injury the people who can ill afford it supporting these parasites through payment of enforced Licence fee. Get rid of the lot.
Complain about this comment
#309
Truly TERRIFYING, Dreaming_Ben!
Complain about this comment
its reported today that mr ross's suspention will cost him about one million pounds, how much do the bbc pay these so called stars and are they realy worth that kind of outlay.
its bad enough that simon cowell wants to buy the rights to TOTP
Complain about this comment
200. At 4:12pm on 30 Oct 2008, offpeggone wrote:
Good Lord this is so ridiculous and half the people complaining seem more upset about the salaries or personal lives of these comedians than what they have actually done
-------------------------------------------
I pay £140 per year towards the salary of Jonathan Ross.
If I don't want to pay him because I think he brings the national TV station and our culture into disrepute then my only option is to either not pay the licence fee (and get fined a vast amount), or to sell my TV so I don't have to pay the licence legally.
Or, I demand he gets sacked.
What would you suggest?
Complain about this comment
Which planet is Ron Mckenzie on? The pranksters have ofended public decency and should pay the price. Their actions were inexcusable. Britian is a sick society. As role models to our younger generation they are part of the cause. Time they were replaced with talented presenters we can all respect.
Complain about this comment
its reported today that mr ross's suspention will cost him about one million pounds, how much do the bbc pay these so called stars and are they realy worth that kind of outlay.
its bad enough that simon cowell wants to buy the rights to TOTP and take it to ITV,
that programme is part of the bbc's heretage and if they allow this jumped up record producer/ band promoter get it he will nodoubt turn it into the simon cowell and his bands show.
i know a bit off topic but its so annoying.
the bbc needs to gather its collective leadership and restructure there rules so extreem acts like mr bland etc can run on more extreem channels like bbc3.
and as morals drop further in the country the bbc will already have the acts ready to transfere to mainstreen channels.
move on from what went wrong to how to improove the system and stop more errors of judgement occuring again.
we can only hope the bbc does the right thing for its viewers and listeners.
Complain about this comment
Rod - I guess you like to think of yourself as "youngish". I think you're complacent. This sort of bahaviour gets aped in the (nowadays, shocking) manners and inconsiderate of young people (ever heard of the endemic increase in bullying?). Also, remember this all the parents and older objectors pay the license fee, many of the young don't. We license payers would like the public service broadcaster to be setting good standards again - as it used to when Andrew Sachs was providing humour in Fawlty Towers.
Complain about this comment
I'm spending far too much time on this. I need to go and do some proper work.
Peter-Sym, you were doing really well there until you showed your true colours at the end.
The only reason I have been prompted to speak out on this is because I wish to distance myself from all of the hatred that's been hurled towards both JR and RB.
There are plenty of people who have expressed a very good opinion as to why they are upset by JR's and RB's actions. Those views are valid and, on this forum in particularly, have mostly been made with some consideration and thought.
But there are plenty of other forums where the views expressed are nowhere near as considered. It's just "sack 'em" and "string 'em up" etc etc, and I find that worrying.
Also, it is clear from many forums and blogs that a good number of people are in support of JR and RB. Perhaps not as much as those against, but a good number nonetheless. In the mainstream media, those voices are not being heard. BBC Breakfast this morning once again ran with this story as the headline (when there is a far more important story developing in the Congo) and chose to make very little time for JR and RB supporters.
I think that's probably me done. Sorry if some of my posts weren't as eloquent as they could have been and if I haven't managed to explain my point of view as well as I should, sorry for that too.
Complain about this comment
The only thing outrageous about this incident is that the BBC are paying so much money to these so-called "entertainers" when there are so many much more talented youngsters out there who would be willing to do the job for a fraction of that payment.
Complain about this comment
So Paulm143 in response at last, It seems a waste of time really me trying to explain to you why some entertainment is acceptable and some is not as you just don’t seem to get it do you, but anyway here goes … There is no real difference in phoning and leaving an obscene message about a member of his family on an answer machine, to a man whose wife is in hospital (live - so an entire audience can laugh along too) as there is to grabbing an unsuspecting victim walking along the street, beating him to a pulp, taking video of the event and sending to all your mates, to give them a laugh.
How can we possibly say one is funny and the other one not and expect our children to understand (unless of course you think the ‘happy slapping’ is funny?)
I’d rather you try answer this question than be generally sarcastic. I just get the feeling you can’t stand my ‘sort’ and all because I have a different opinion to you. Comedy is often cruel and I haven’t a clue why we laugh at the poor unfortunates that are the victims but I do know that when it gets personal and runs over into real life, ie directed at individuals rather than third party humour, then it’s a type of bullying and the world becomes a foul place to live
Complain about this comment
What I find really sad about this is that, in its woefully inadequate handling of this affair (let's face it 3 months suspension is just a nice holiday, Ross will be back taking millions of taxpayers' money again before we know it), the BBC has given its critics a big stick with which to beat it.
We all know that the Daily Mail mob would love to see the end of the licence fee. In the past, I've been a great fan of the BBC and would argue passionately in favour of the licence fee. I no longer feel I can do so: if a Daily Mail reader now tells me they think the licence fee needs to go, I really wouldn't know how to argue against them any more.
And that's a great shame.
Complain about this comment
Guru Bear
So if we don't like a programme we need to watch wait for a slip up then jump on the band wagone to get rid of it
There are probably plenty of programmes on the BBC that you enjoy which I don't should I start complaining about those till there is nothing left on the TV
Fact is Ross gets more audience than most of the dross on the BBC so it's pleasing most people and this witch hunt has pleased the minority at the expense of the majority
Complain about this comment
Who has really caused the most distress to Andrew Sachs here?
Ross and Brand who left a couple of lewd comments on his answerphone and who have both apologised or...
The Daily Mail who made this into a national event, The Sun who then encouraged his grandaughter to "speak out" and dragged the whole thing on for even longer and Baillie herself for using this as an opportunity for some free publicity by telling the world that she's a "glamour model" which she knew would humiliate Sach's further.
One of the things I find most disgusting about this is the way everyone is jumping to defend Sachs as if he's some doddering old man whose heart almost gave out when he read the message. He may be 78, but he's still capable and aware. He's said we should just draw a line under it and move on, but the people complaining are far more interested in their own self-righteous bluster than they are in actually listening to the man's wishes.
If he's so well respected, why can't everyone just STFU and let him have his life back?
Complain about this comment
#317
The licence fee is an obligatory payment even if you never turn your radio or tv on, or even if you only use your receiving equipment for watching home videos, so in order to have any home entertainment whatsoever, one is compelled to contribute to the salaries of BBC staff, whether or not one wants to.
Fair enough - the BBC's news and current affairs programming alone is worth the fee, so I don't object to stars being paid the going rate, I don't complain that much of the programming is not to my taste but I DO object to stars breaking the law while being paid by an all-but-compulsory public subscription.
Complain about this comment
Lesley Douglas and Russell Brand have behaved honourably. Now the chief culprit should also do the same and resign forthwith.
Complain about this comment
I'm back. Can't keep away.
Gurubear, I'm afraid that your point exactly sums up what it is I take issue with here.
Those of us in support of JR and RB are merely expressing our right to voice an opinion.
You are expressing your opnion (fine), but also demanding that that part of the BBC's output you disapprove of is taken away. Your demand will affect what I want to watch. I am not trying to do that to you. I watch very little BBC programming. Should I demand the sacking of all of the producers who make programmes that I don't like? Of course not.
Ah, you'll say, but those programmes don't bring the BBC into disrepute. Well, I'm sorry. I like trouble-makers. I like those who bring the media into disrepute. Those are the shows I do watch. Do not attempt to impose your views on me. You don't like something? Do what I do - change the channel.
Complain about this comment
#321. Glad you agree with most of my comments but I think you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who disagrees that Brands comedy comes from being Brand. I don't mean that in a particularly negative way either- he's a caricature, a pantomime figure. My favourite comedian is Ross Noble who can talk absolute nonsense for hours on end (I've seen him live 3 times). Brand can't. To me he's funny but only in small doses because he doesn't have enough depth of material.
I agree with most of the rest of your points. basically this whole incident can be summarised as:
-Ross and Brand went too far on air and picked on a very unsuitable target. If they'd called Chris Moyles or Jeremy Clarkson's answer phone they'd have got away with it.
-When Sachs complained the BBC did nothing. A slap on the wrist for whoever cleared the material and a full and genuine sounding apology from Ross and Brand would probably have sufficed.
-Instead the BBC basically sat there and ignored the problem until the media created this storm. The BBC was percieved to not care at all about Sachs distress and had the media not whipped up a frenzy still wouldn't have apologised.
-Then the BBC over-reacted and started sacking people in a shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted manner.
-In addition its raised very serious issues about how the BBC is spending the huge amount of money it levees from us. This escalation in the story wouldn't have happened if they'd addressed the problem earlier.
Fair summary?
Complain about this comment
Lucemorals.
If that is how you view JR's and RB's actions, then I can fully understand why you're upset. But I think your analogy is too extreme.
If JR and RB had wandered into a hospital, for example, and saw AS there with his wife and started mocking and ridiculing him, then... well, I'd be the first in line to give them a bloody good slap! As I hope would everyone who is supporting them.
Having listened to the recording, my viewpoint was that the intention was not malicious. The joke is that they make a mess of a situation and then continue to make it hopelessly, apallingly worse. They are buffoons acting as buffoons. When I first heard this, and chuckled, I was laughing at JR and RB.
If fate had meant that the answerphone belonged to another celeb, would there be the same amount of fuss?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I am reproducing comments made by ROY Smith about BBC's double standard, for attention of all those living on Licence Payers hard earned money.
To whomever it may concern
Dear Sir or Madam
The BBC has most definitely become a double standard organisation which is proven with this incident with Ross and Brand..
I quote just some of the rules that all members of the Public have to abide by in order to post on the "Have Your Say" page on the BBC website:
No defamatory comments. A defamatory comment is one that is capable of damaging the reputation of a person or organisation. If successfully sued you could be held liable for considerable damages and costs.
Do not post messages that are unlawful, harassing, defamatory, abusive, threatening, harmful, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, homophobic or racially offensive.
No swearing. People of all ages read and contribute to Have Your Say. Please don't use profanities or other words which might offend them.
Disciplinary procedure
Violation of any of the rules above may lead to your membership account be temporarily suspended or terminated. The BBC additionally reserves the right to suspend or terminate any membership account at any time and at its sole discretion. While suspended, returning to the site by creating another account will constitute a further offence and will result in your account being closed permanently. The BBC reserves the right to delete any posting, at any time, for any reason, and is under no obligation to publish any work submitted
Now if this applies to the public why doesn't it apply to The BBC Presenters too?????
Complain about this comment
Peter_Sym
A very fair summary indeed, Sir, very well put and nicely objective.
Sachs has indeed turned out to have been unsuitable target. I use the phrase "turned out" as this may have only come to light later. (What I mean is that as someone who's always telling jokes in the office, I know sometimes I can put my foot in it good and proper, when there's someone who suddenly doesn't find my comments funny. I don't know that, though, unitl I've said it. Then think, won't bother trying to make them laugh again.)
This actually would have been a blinding bit of comedy if the answerphone was Clarkson's.
I really need to go and do some work now. I've got stacks of emails to answer.
This has been an excellent forum. It's been fascinating to read posts from those who have taken the time to explain how they have come to their own conclusions. it's been a pleasure debating with some of you. Thanks to the BBC for providing it, advert free! Licence money well spent, methinks.
Till the next time guys.
(And I really mean it this time.)
Complain about this comment
"We know no spectacle so ridiculous as the British public in one of its periodical fits of morality." Lord Macaulay summed this blog up in 1830.
Complain about this comment
Sorry, just one more...
Peter_Sym
Yes, Brand is funny because he's Brand. Agreed.
I bloody love Ross Noble. The speed that guy's mind works is just awesome.
And to think he was that good when he was just 18.
Awesome.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Rod, while you and Mark Easton attempt to play down this fiasco as being just a generation thing, I wish to make three points.
Firstly, the selfish needs of the audience were put ahead of the feelings of Andrew Sachs. He made it clear that he found the messages offensive and didn't wish them to be aired; the BBC listened to his concerns and then basically ignore him. It doesn't matter what the older generation think or what the younger generation think is or isn't funny; the BBC failed to protect the rights of an individual who they knew was directly offended by material in one of their programmes. I don't know where broadcasting rules stand with regards to this matter but by airing this part of the radio show the BBC broke rules in trust, decency, common sense and integrity.
Secondly, the BBC aired part of the programme knowing that it would provide laughs at the expense of directly offending someone; the BBC did it because that's what that audience demands. So, is the BBC therefore saying that it's okay to offend people just for laughs because that's what the audience want? Isn't that what Bernard Manning and Jim Davidson use to say? Hey, there are some people out there who are entertained by Happy Slap videos. As the BBC are so concerned with reaching out to its audience's needs, perhaps it should broadcast some of its own? If younger people supposedly want comedy at the expense of offending/abusing individual(s) then perhaps the BBC has a duty to help reeducate them before we head back to the dark ages of the offensive comedy of the 70's.
Finally, I wish to draw your attention to the bigger picture. Those who are fans of the radio show talk about people not seeing the phone messages in context. Ironically, it's the fans of the show who are not seeing these phone messages in context. By airing this segment of the show, knowing that it was offensive to AS, the BBC have provided more ammunition for the narrow minded tabloid masses who are gunning for the BBC and the likes of JR, who find his £6m per year of tax payers money extremely offensive. Now look what's happened in the aftermath of this latest incident. RB gone. JR suspended. Lesley Douglas gone. The BBC, yet again, has been very naive in this latest in a series of incidences that have shown a serious lack of judgement, integrity and responsibility. The probable outcome of this fiasco is that rules will be brought in to satisfy the tabloid masses that could stifle creativity and cutting edge broadcasting. Popular programmes like 'Mock the Week' and 'Have I Got News For You' could potentially suffer.
So the question is, was airing this segment of a programme worth it for a few minutes of embarrassing, offensive humour? After all, it wouldn't have affected JR's and RB's radio show if it had been edited out. The audience would have been none the wiser. The tabloid press wouldn't have said anything. JR wouldn't be suspended. RB and Lesley Douglas would still be working for the BBC.
But hey, the audience got their laughs so what's all the fuss about?
Complain about this comment
You make precisely the right point. Those individuals who think it's 'blown out of all proportion' are mainly young adults and juveniles, exactly the target audience for the show.
The problem as I see it is that this type of 'prank' call may be juvenile and may have been funny had it been targeted at someone of a similar age. Instead it was aimed at an old man who is hugely respected amongst the 40+'s in our society.
The call was ill-conceived, ill-mannered and more to the point illegal. Brand has done the decent thing. Ross' ego unfortunately prevents him from making a similar gesture and has put the onus on the BBC Trust to dish out any punishment. Like fining a professional footballer a month's wages, the £1m Jonathon is due to miss out on during his three month suspension will have little impact.
So, in the New Year we can all look forward to having JR back on our screen's on a Friday night..with a bit of luck Al Murray's happy hour will be back on then!! Now there's a comedian who can target any individual with his caustic wit without belittling or offending them.
Perhaps time for Offcom to do the honourable thing?
Complain about this comment
I too seem to fall between the two demographics of "older listeners" and "younger listeners" - being 32. I listen to both radio 1 and radio 2 and I am a fan of Ross and Brand.
The readers of the Daily Mail seem overwhelmingly to believe they represent some sort of majority in this, so I'm pleased to see the alternative opinion being given voice. I've done the maths and the readers of the daily mail represent around 3.85% of the UK population and those that complained (after the event) represent just under 0.05%. I can only conclude therefore that the vast majority either support Ross and Brand, or of course actually don't care at all.
Please BBC - don't let the vocal opinions of a minority lead by a newspaper with it's own agenda spoil it for the rest of us.
Complain about this comment
It's perhaps worth mentioning that it's probably the same people defending Brand and Ross' over this incident that vilified Jim Davidson for his 'shirt-lifter' comment in Celebrity Hell's Kitchen, which effectively had him 'withdrawn' from that show.
Double standards I fear?
Complain about this comment
Can anyone who is over 30 or 40 years old and remembers the BBC when it was the most respected radio station in the world imagine that anything like this would have happened then? No, it was unthinkable. This incident is not the cause of BBC's decline, it is a symptom. It is the slow but steady degradation of standards, loss of integrity, indifference to anything and anyone but the immediate gratification of themselves as infants would demand that is the low point BBC has sunk to. That it is not merely tolerated but accepted and dismissed by a large segment of British society shows that the real problems go much deeper to the heart of what Britain has become. It didn't happen all at once but it is as certain as can be that it did. Britain is now so self absorbed it doesn't even see it let alone the need to retreat from the precipice it is heading for. Small wonder so many Brits have left or are so unhappy with their society wish they could. There is no reason why this kind of incident or others like it won't be repeated many times in the future.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Kitbag 42 – Thanks for your comment. The problem is that you and I might realise their action wasn't malicious and just thoughtless, behaving as if everyone would think they were being amusing. We are however adults and can make the distinction. Unfortunately many (and no not all) of our younger generation increasingly cannot because the lines are so smudged. If there is suddenly a spate of incidences where children feel compelled to phone and leave obscene messages on answer machines of strangers because it was made cool by two DJ’s, will anyone remember that so many thought it had all been blown out of proportion initially.
Complain about this comment
293 Offpeggone:
"you can't have a view from the transcript by the way as half of the humour was in the delivery of the lines where it is apparent no malice is intended".
"No malice intended"? I obviously watched completely different video clips: one of the worst, most harassing bits of the malicious illegal calls was Brand's mocking sung apology. His later apology did seem more genuine but he and Ross were very clearly enjoying their bullying 'fun' at the time.
Having said that, Brand's done the right thing in resigning, which is more than you can say for Jonathan Ross who lamentably will return after his long Christmas holiday and resume being paid ridiculous amounts of our money for his self-indulgent non-comedy.
Or perhaps not. Maybe the ongoing review will reach the right decision and recognise he should have been sacked in the first place, as nearly everyone employed outside the BBC's ivory tower would have been for the same offence. Just because someone else failed to censor his unacceptable behaviour doesn't absolve JR himself of the original legal infringement.
With the £6million p.a. it saves, the BBC would then be able to employ several comedians with more talent... which would be very easy.
Complain about this comment
To paraphrase Wikipedia
"There is a thin dividing line between a prank call and harrassment, nuisance calls"
Obscenity,profanity, personal reference, slander and ridicule deems the call Harrassment.
Phoning more than one time is deemed harrassment and a prosecutable offence.
Many American DJ's have been instantly dismissed for crossing this line. Imus (a popular edgy and established presenter on the radio)- was off the air and out of the doors before he could turn round. there was a public outcry (after he'd been fired actually) when it hit the news and press. What did he say? he made some derogatory off the cuff comments about a girl's basketball team.
Prank calls have been used by entertainers since way before the 60's. Jerry Lewis made hilarious calls which are still on sale today- he'd phone up pretending to be a car salesman. But you see, he didn't get personal, obscene, or offensive. It was good clean fun and classic pieces of comedy- still around after nearly 50 years.
Ross and Brand obviously don't know the difference between a prank call and nuisance calls which break the law. This is NOT a matter of opinion -its the LAW.
They aren't edgy- pushing boundaries, they barged right through. Ross being the biggest culprit ( a 48yr old!)- he blew it with his first blurt of "He f....... your granddaughter" - they just dug themselves deeper and deeper after that. Comedy- no that's not comedic genius. It was a series of nuisance calls giving offence.
Whether people found it funny or not is up to them, but the fact that they were illegal nuisance calls is black and white- end of.
Kids need to learn the difference because when some try to emulate these two buffoons (and they will)- they'll get in big trouble with the police depending.
The spate of kids so called "prank calling" the emergency services (a serious offence punishable by jail sentence) a while back- does anyone think Brand's reckless "pranking" the police had anything to do with that. I wonder how many people were delayed emergency treatment or service because of a 'prank' call- funny huh?? Not- someone could have died.
These two are extremely lucky they are not on a charge right now- tell the police they need to chill and get a sense of humour.
As DG said yesterday "No-one is above the law".
Those who tell us to change channel- please do so- you an find Brand on Channel 4- so what's all your fuss about. The BBC can't afford to dragged into disrepute by two verbal happy slappers.
Complain about this comment
kitbag # 329
"I am not trying to do that to you. I watch very little BBC programming. Should I demand the sacking of all of the producers who make programmes that I don't like? Of course not.
-Do you pay your licence fee? If so, then yes you certainly may demand the removal of programmes you don't like. Why not? The BBC are supposed to listen to you.
They may not act on your recommendation, but you have the right to tell them what programmes you do and don't like. The BBC belongs to you, as well.
I fully support your right to ask for the removal of progs or presenters that I may like but you don't.
Complain about this comment
When caveman Og said to caveman Ug 'I've slept with your daughter ha ha ha!' it was intended to humiliate. It wasn't funny (or 'edgy') then, it still isn't, and it never will be. Male sexually aggressive behaviour, merely verbal or otherwise, will always be with us, and males with sexually mature female relatives will always worry about it. Ross and Brand made an attack on the basic ties of family responsibility which bind us together as human beings, which is why older people, who have more extensive family responsibilities than younger people, are so angry about it.
The best that can be said of the younger people interviewed who dismissed this incident is that none of them is old enough to have a teenage daughter; when they are I suspect their attitude may change. There is a natural tendency for young people (in particular males?) to enjoy the teasing and sexual humiliation of others: this is what is being referred to here as 'funny'. It is the task of any society to socialise its young people, placing limits and restrictions on this tendency.
Complain about this comment
Bloofs.
But why should I? I don't have a monopoly on what's right or wrong. I only have my own absolutely unique viewpoint. If I don't like a programme, I do not watch. If there are people out there who clearly do like that programme, why should I want to take it away from them? Why should I want to impose my ideals on another human being?
NotDailyMailReader
This is not just a simple case of young and old. There are plenty of older people, of both sexes who have posted supportive comments on various forums. I am old enough to have a teenage daughter and indeed do have one. My teenage daughter (who is at college) phoned me a couple of nights ago to say "Have you seen the Ross and Brand clip on Youtube. It's soooo funny." I said I had seen it and that it had made me laugh.
Taffyles
You seem to be very angry tonight. I think we've found our difference. You seem to enjoy quoting the laws and incidents that you've found. I always hate it when I read about a shock-jock or someone similar getting fired for overstepping the mark. I get that click, that little bubble of anger inside, that dislike of authority that I've always had, even as a child. I can't help it, it's the way I am.
Complain about this comment
Sitting in a wee room, feeding off each other, having a laugh, took it too far. Been there many times. Better to have a good laugh than be fearful of what you might say in error. Nae fun in that. They both know they took it too far. Such is life.
Complain about this comment
Preliminary. I am surprised that I cannot find the audience figures for Jonathon Ross on Friday Night via either this web site or Google or any other search engine. You are financed by the audience and we should be able to see what we it is we like and what we don't. BARB figures comparing you to other channels are of use to you but not to us.
Main line. As a regular watcher of JR on FN I see no reason for you to punish us because the tabloids found something that they thought would boost their circulations by kicking you (and indirectly us). We like JR and RB precisely because they are prepared to do things on the spur of the moment that make us laugh. As do 'The News Quiz', 'QI', 'Today', etc. You are not there to decide what we should watch, what is suitable for us, what is acceptable to tabloid editors (you don't have headlines about their bad taste editorials and articles - pity, why don't you collect our complaints about their sickies - there are far more of us then their readers). We pay for the programmes - your figures show what we like - JR on FN is one of them I bet. If you don't like this 21st century environment then you shouldn't be in an editorial/management position. Go and help run the ECB or some other old foggies self help club.
Subsidiary. Getting steamed up about a comedy show opens the question of where your priorities lie. There are far more important issues that you pay less attention too - climate change falsification by 'conflict of interest' parties, civil rights abuses by government (did we really want ASBO's for 10 yr olds and OAPs), giving 'equal' time to fringe groups like UKIP on 'serious' news programmes that are short of air time. You need to grow up - this isn't the 1950s - your audience is well educated and doesn't need your censorship - it needs more information and more satire. We could also do with less recycling of old faces (out of their area of expertise (usually comics or gardeners who've lost the plot)) that you seem to think need to be supported from our license fees, and more new people with current ideas.
Complain about this comment
I am saddened that so many people find the crude remarks made by Ross and Brand even vaguely amusing. With their humour being only of the vulgar kind, and usually relying on what can only be described as schoolboy lavatory humour, it is surprising that such offence has not happened sooner than this.I am at a loss as to why such unattractive and talentless men have managed to attain the level they have and to ''earn'' the money they get. It is just another example of the dumbing down of so much of the BBC .... the unquestioning acceptance of bad language, bad grammar, and puerile ''humour'' to appeal to some young people, to boost the ''number of listeners''.Why not have a channel just for the Ross and Brand type ''humourists'' and build the reputation of the BBC up again!
Complain about this comment
Ketlux - ever considered the possibility that you can't find the audience figures for FNwJR because they've been in freefall for months but Auntie Beeb daren't let it be known, having blown the budget on his contract? Just a thought...
...oh, and here's another... while berating the Beeb, and saying we're all too mature to need its censorship, you casually censor out the views of UKIP as an irrelevance. Hmmm... more double standards, anyone???
OK, here's the deal: based on your views, I'm going to approach the Beeb first thing Monday with my minority comedy programme idea in which every liberal leftie, person of other-than-straight sexual orientation, or every person of non-white origin is strung up by his gonads and peppered with buckshot for my amusement.
What do you mean, there's no audience for it/people would object/we can't cater for Daily Mail readers only? But, I pay my licence fee/I'm mature and sensible/the Beeb's obliged to cater for my extreme tastes just because I think it's funny.
I've got a great idea for a quiz show for with Neo-Nazis, too... it's really edgy!
PS, everyone - did you hear the undersea singers of 'Delilah' on the Chris Evans show tonight? So funny that I had to park, because I'd laughed 'til I cried and couldn't see where I was driving. And the best part was - nobody got hurt, or offended, and both my granny and my grandchild (if I had either) could've listened with me.
Complain about this comment
Interestingly, I've had a comment deleted by a moderator because it was judged defamatory - I defamed the BBC, by repeating (without quotes) what Mark Thompson said about this issue on last night's Newsnight.
You couldn't make it up, could you?
Anyone know if Andrew Sachs' wife is still in hospital?
Complain about this comment
Jonathan Ross should have his OBE revoked as a result of his recent lewd disorderly disgusting and juvenile conduct as it was awarded for services to Broadcasting.
The very least he could do is hand it back and say thanks,but I am no longer worthy of such an honour due to my stupidity and my widiculous behaviour.
Lets see if a petition can be set up on the Number 10 Downing Street Petition Website to have the OBE revoked if he wont hand it back.
It is an absolute disgrace what he an Brand have done.Talk about taking a step to far and going some more!
Complain about this comment
Im 65 yrs old and cant see the problem with th Ross and Brand joke, after all we all let them say what they wanted in the past and i find them really funny, im still working and they make my day with their comments. The girl in question is proberly getting more publicity now than she would ever had before. She'll be on chat shows and goodness knows what else. So i say bring the boys back after all it was TRUE what was said. Thunderdesiree xxxxxxxxxxx
Complain about this comment
At 12:40pm on 31 Oct 2008, Gurubear wrote:
“200. At 4:12pm on 30 Oct 2008, offpeggone wrote:
Good Lord this is so ridiculous and half the people complaining seem more upset about the salaries or personal lives of these comedians than what they have actually done”
BBC’s DG Mark Thompson may have tried to ‘draw a line’ after this Ross/Brand fiasco but the truth is the public has taken upon themselves to hold referendum on the way the BBC affairs are conducted and how peoples’ hard earned is being squandered for the benefit of friends and relatives of the management.
The result of the referendum is quite conclusive. The public resent being forced to pay for the life style of the likes of Ross and company and BBC’s incompetent management. This is first time BBC has taken some action on public’s concern albeit half hearted!
Personally I regard Mark Thompson’s action too little too late. Our political masters are mainly to be blamed keeping BBC in its present form to have jobs for their boys and have a hold on the organization for political reasons. BBC has been allowed to degenerate into a self opinionated and self righteous organization and this clearly reflects in every part of the organization. Indeed the whole structure of the organization has become self serving to help friends and relatives to keep and create jobs. There are clear examples to see!!
WE DO NOT NEED BBC FUNDED BY ENFORCED LICENCE FEE. Get rid of it NOW!
Complain about this comment
As if thye BBC hasn't got enough problems we find last night that 'Have I got news for you' carried on the insults and the abuse. I used to enjoy this programme but not anymore. Is the loss of control due to independent productions, if so Kick them Out!!!
As for Mr. Cable I have never been impressed, but to fine an MP carrying on the circus is downright absurd and downright ignorant!!!!!!
Complain about this comment
Kitbag:
"But why should I? I don't have a monopoly on what's right or wrong. I only have my own absolutely unique viewpoint. If I don't like a programme, I do not watch. If there are people out there who clearly do like that programme, why should I want to take it away from them? Why should I want to impose my ideals on another human being? "
-There is such a thing as an absolute morality, isn't there? There are things that the vast majority don't think is 'right', surely?
Eg, theft.
In this case, opinion may be divided as to what to *do* about Ross and Brand, but overwhelming majority (even those who defend them) agree that what Ross did was not 'right'. Besides, whatever we say, the DG of the BBC says it wasn't right, and that it shouldn't have happened. He agrees with the moaners, and I don't think he agrees just because of presssure.
The 'don't like it do not watch' argument does not fully apply in this case because: everyone has to pay their licence fee (yes I know we could give up TV but come on). Therefore everyone has a say. I think you aren't fully recognising what public service broadcasting is.
Supposing a BBC presenter had a show where he regularly makes overtly and unapologetic racist comments (an extreme example I know) - and the broadcaster said 'if you don't like it don't tune in' - you would be happy with that? You would say 'a few racists enjoy this programme what right do I have to take it away from them?'.
I know you will say 'that's an unfair example' - but the point is, do we not have a say in getting programmes off the air in *any* circumstances, or do we have a right in *some* circumstances (you and I may disagree as to whether Ross should be removed, but do you support the idea that in *some* circumstances audiences do have the right to ask for removal of progs and presenters).
Now you may decide that in the interests of free speech we shouldn't have a state broadcaster like the BBC - so that audiences can't make such demands - but that's a whole other issue.
Complain about this comment
I would add that society is always about imposing ideals on other human beings and always has been, to believe otherwise is naive. That's what politics is all about.
Complain about this comment
I actually listened to the show and can't understand how it became a major news item.
The whole 'prank' thing was obviously not thought through - but it was certainly not malicious.
If you listen to his radio show - the butt of Russell's jokes are usually Russell himself.
I look forward to Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross every week and always download their podcasts.
I would guess that most (if not all) of those people who are supposedly outraged by that particular show are not regular listeners or fans of either Russell or Jonathan.
I really don't think that people who wouldn't listen anyway should have such strong opinions.
If it weren't for the media attention given to this - there would only be the two original complaints.
I pay my licence fee too.
I would like to say good luck to BBC Radio with their listener figures - as i have checked the schedule for today.
Can we ask for people to resign for being dull and uninspiring ?
Good for you for resigning Russell - i will hopefully be listening to your new show on another station in the near future.
We miss you x
Complain about this comment
I'm so sorry. It was cruel and not very funny and I really shouldn't have laughed at someone else's discomfort. But I couldn't help myself...
Looking back, Mark Thompson's explanation of Jonathan Ross's suspension was more unconvincing than it was comical. (Had he also been asked why suspension rather than dismissal - and to say what misbehaviour would actually warrant the latter, that would have been more entertaining). But when his straight man George Alagiah asked him if he'd considered his position as a result of the fiasco, his evasion of the question - and the great contrast between his assertion that he was 'confident' about getting on with the job and its faltering seat-squirming delivery - now that WAS unintentionally almost funny.
At least funnier than star presenters getting away with making illegal malicious phone calls in work time and other people taking the rap for their offences.
Complain about this comment
When I hear a funny joke, I'm tempted to repeat it, maybe even claim it as my own.
So what I don't get about those people who claim the brand/Ross phone calls to Andrew Sachs were 'funny' is why they're not out repeating it.
Why aren't they phoning up the elderly grandparents of people they've slept with to tell them they've ****** their grandchildren.
After all, it's supposed to be SO funny.
If you're defending them, why aren't you telling the same joke?
Or maybe it isn't so funny if it involves someone you know.
Complain about this comment
"The 'prank' was not malicious."
Oh, that's OK then. So those people at football matches who make monkey noises and throw bananas at black players 'for a laugh', that's OK then? I mean, if it's just a laugh on the part of those doing it, it's fine. In fact, if it wasn't for the media reporting it, a lot of those monkey chants and bananas wouldn't even be noticed by most people. I bet most people complaining about them weren't even at the match so what right have they to complain?
Complain about this comment
You want funny phone calls?
Listen to 'fonejacker'
They don't always work but even when they don't he doesn't abuse anyone, say he's ****** their grandaughter, phone them repeatedly or suggest they might hang themselves.
How on earth can he be funny without doing those things or relying on purile smut and innuendo?
Obviously a quesion Brand and Ross don't know the answer to.
Complain about this comment
This is the best article I've so far read on this - from the Canadian newspaper the Globe and Mail - http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20081101.RENZETTI01/TPStory/Entertainment/columnists
And after another long night of pondering...
Do I find Ross and Brand's antics funny? Yes
Do I find Ross and Brand's antics acceptable? Yes.
Would I mind if someone left that sort of message on my answerphone? No. I'd find it funny.
Am I a part of the yonger generation? No. I'm 40.
Am I a responsible adult? Yes. Family man, one teenage daughter.
Do the rest of your family find Ross and Brand's antics funny and acceptable? Yes. All three of us find it funny.
Do your work colleagues find Ross and Brand's antics acceptable and funny? It wasn't discussed at all in the office until this morning when, being a Saturday, there was only a few staff in. 19 thought it was funny. 1 didn't. Most of my colleagues are aged in their 30s and 40s. Mostly female. Mostly tabloid readers. 1 or 2 got quite angry about it. I left with a spring in my step.
Do you care about the "yoof" of today and the standards being set for them? I'm pleased that they've shown that they like a bit of mischief, like the mods and rockers with their bank holiday punch ups and the punks with their swastika armbands before them.
Do I have double standards when it comes to freedom of expression? Would I like to see neo-nazis on TV? Did I complain about Jim Davidson's comments? For me, freedom of expression includes the freedom to offend. If you want to shout an obscenity at me as I walk along the street, then please feel free. If a neo-nazi wants to get up on TV, then let him. I won't agree with him and I'll probably hurl a few rude words at the screen, but I believe he has the right to say what he thinks.
Do I think that Russell Brand is any good as a comedian? Not really relevent, but actually yes. I think he's a very talented performer. My daughter and I sat up late last night with a bottle of wine watching recordings of Ponderland and giggling like schoolkids. We felt the need to. Got a hangover today.
We're off now to help my mum run a stall for a help the aged jumble sale. (I put that bit in because one or two of you might be surprised.)
Complain about this comment
It is amusing the volume of wordal verbage on this subject of poor behaviour.
It is a shame that the blog owner is so insinceare as to not realise the fault in the first place.
Such is the blindness of 'culture'.
Complain about this comment
Hi Bloofs.
Just wanted to quickly reply to your excellent post and thank you for taking the time to respond to my earlier comments. I think you've hit the nail on the head.
Is there such a thing as absolute morality?
No, I don't think that there is. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and all that. That's a naff quote, I know, but it kind of illustrates the point.
That's why it's so important to think about and to discuss what's going on in the world and to debate it all times. And thank heavens that the internet allows this even more now. It allows people to express themselves. In hiding behind false names, people really let go, really say what they feel. It's wonderful. And many many posts on this forum in particular have been extremely thoughtful and fascinating to read. It's caused me to re-evaluate my own thougts for several nights now, freedom of expression and the right to offend, being for some reason rather important to me.
When everyone says "this is wrong", the internet more than ever allows that little lone voice to pop-up and say "is it?"
I know that when I visit my mum in a few minutes time, if we discuss this issue she'll be horrified. She'll say that Brand and Ross behaved like idiots and that what they did was awful. And she'll see that familiar twinkle in my eye, catch my daughter stifling a giggle and say "oh, I know what you bloody think".
Then we'll get on with the day ahead.
Have a lovely weekend.
Complain about this comment
I do,nt understand why the BBC has allowed R2 to be hijacked by R1 presenters like R Brand & J Ross, keep their foul mouths where they belong on R1, and we all would know where to find them. R2 was always for "Easy Listening" music and content, for family and middle of the road, aged matured in Oak, types. We might be "anoraks", but we like it that way and used to listen to R2. -Palpete-
Complain about this comment
Is it surprising that in a dictatorship like the UK, the government controls much of the media. When the British government criticizes Russia or China for the way their governments control the media, it really is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Complain about this comment
I think your blog a shallow attempt to aid the BBC in ducking it's responsibility. I don't believe that I've been manipulated by a media witch hunt and yes, I have listened to the original pod cast.
I'm younger than Russell Brand so I'll suppose that makes me young (though I think neither of us so young that we may be excused such utter stupidity). I found the pod cast offensive and wonder how many of the same young people you allude to would be so blasé if it where their grandparent that had been attacked so. I also find it interesting that Jonathan Ross hasn't been fired when it was actually he that made the offensive remark, it shows him for a coward. The press make and break the likes of Brand and Ross and so I have little sympathy for them now that it has turned; they are the authors of their own destruction in this regard, Brand courts negative press on a daily basis and Ross is part of the same hateful pack that hunts him now. I agree that this issue seems to have been blown out of all proportion, but I don't believe it merely a matter of press manipulation, people do feel that they as licence payers have a right to complain about how this company does business and spends their money and how many of these young people actually pay a licence fee. Granted this issue pales in comparison to the fact say, that not one member of the Metropolitan Police had to retire after they'd gunned to death an innocent man, but it is in these small details that the battle for moral life is won.
Complain about this comment
I will tell you a simple moral story. A young man of 23 joked with a young man of 16 about his own relationship with an elder member of the young lads family.
The lad told his mother, the mother told her social worker, the social worker informed her boss ,he informed child protection, child protection informed the police, the police interviewed them both the 26 year old was given a caution. He was very good at his job but had made a silly mistake even though nobody was hurt he was sacked as he was in a position of responsibility. He now will not be able to get work again in this area of work due to the caution that will be on his CRB police check.
He learnt in todays new PC world you cant even joke about some matters as some people who have double standards think you can.
So really it is not so bad for Ross and Brand they are talented people,I'm sure they are sorry and they will soon bounce back on our T.V. Radio and films and good luck to them. The moral is, people in glass houses should not throw stones and more importantly the people who are in charge of them should try to be well aware of what they are likely to throw.
Complain about this comment
To quote from a quality BBC comedy:
"I don't believe it!"
An earlier post of mine in which I apologised for finding the DG's interview with George Alagiah more amusing than Ross and Brand's malicious calls has got the moderators in a tizz. Any suggestions why?
Complain about this comment
One theme of this blog seems to be that we need to allow comedians to offend others, and - in this case the offense might have been 'OK' because of the audience it was aimed at.
Freedom works both ways - Brand and Ross' freedom to offend (which they did), and Sachs and Baillie's freedom to not be offended (which was trampled on).
There are times when offense might be appropriate, (although I question gratuitous offense as in this case), and there are places where people put themselves in a position to be offended, such as an audience attending a recording of a show known to use offending language.
In this case the freedom to not be offended clearly outweighs the freedom to cause offense.
Complain about this comment
Anyone remember a man called Robert Kilroy-Silk? Chat show host fired by the BBC for his description of Arabs as "Suicide bombers and limb amputators."
Ain't a single shadow of a doubt that if Sachs and his granddaughter had been Muslims, Ross and Brand and Douglas would have been out of Broadcasting House in ten second flat, never to find another job in broadcasting.
Complain about this comment
There is a very fine line between being funny and bullying, whatever your age.
Russell and Jonathon were being bullies, then all the zillions of people who complained were bullies, then the BBC was a bully, and all the wrong people were hurt/punished.
Me and my grandson think that Russell and Jonathon can be very funny indeed, but that we wouldn't have liked to be on the receiving end of their recent "prank".
We thought that 6 weeks of community service having to sort out the consequences of bullying in schools might make them less likely to do the same thing again.
Complain about this comment
@#10
“I think this is really a matter of setting boundaries as to what is acceptable?”
I think this is a crucial point, because over the last few years too many boundaries seem to have been blurred, leaving only respect for race and colour. Respect for age, and the elderly, seems to have been discarded.
Those who claim this was a trivial “joke” would no doubt be the first to be outraged if the message had contained a teeny trace of racial hatred.
It's all well and good to mess about with your mates, but too many young people ignore or are completely ignorant of and fail to respect the sensitivities that often come with age. Abuse of the elderly is not funny, nor is it clever.
It is not “smart” or “cool” to leave a rude message on an elderly person's answering machine.
I would like to ask both Ross and Brand how they would feel if the same thing had happened to their grandparents or other elderly relatives. Wouldn't they feel outraged and expect sanctions against the perpetrator(s)?
If not, then why not?
Complain about this comment
anita-r
You're absolutely right. If AS asked the BBC not to air the offending clip, and if that request was deliberately ignored, then that was absolutely wrong. And whoever ignored that request should be held accountable for that error.
And that should have been the end of it, instead of this ridiculous circus.
Complain about this comment
dear sir
your bias in concentrating on the pro ross/brand support is understandable.what is not is a failure to recognise that irregardless of numerical support either way is that what they gratuitously indulged in was an illegal act.[i draw your attention to Section 127 Communications Act, 2003].
The Communications Act 2003 section 127, covers the sending of improper messages. Section 127(1)(a) relates to a message etc that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character.
so is this the mark of a man in the 21st century!
take gleeful part in a bullying phone call to an eldely gentlemen recounting the sexual exploits of his granddaughter.
then when this backfires on him he locks himself away at home & lets others carry the can in the hope that he might save his own neck.
if so he must be very proud of himself indeed.
Complain about this comment
It is a great pity that your blog jumps on the "age divide" as a point of controversy in this sad and shoddy affair. Messrs Ross and Brand made an unsolicited, offensive and obnoxious phone call to Mr Sachs, which in essence must be close to being unlawful. Mr Ross also broke a confidence.