Comments for en-gb 30 Mon 22 Sep 2014 09:38:51 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at taffyles Actually the biggest mistake was made by the BBC trying to connect with youth by going down to their level. It has backfired on them in a spectacular way. Brand and Ross should never have been hired in the first place- they belong on channel 4. Both are 2nd rate performers who were out of the depth, and whose brand of 'humour' was destined to career out of it did. Any parent who's brought up teenagers could have foreseen this happening. Sun 02 Nov 2008 21:48:32 GMT+1 stalisman Brand is a clueless imbicile as shown when at the MTV awards he tried to make a strike at Bush and totally missed.He is a vocal dipstick.Ross however does have some redeaming features such as sincerity and being is a real shame that you folks have gotten so wound up over waht is essentialy and editorial issue.They were wrong, but the greater wrong was perpetrated by their managers in allowing it to be repeated.You all make a very big mistake in putting the failiures of an institution on a single Man's shoulders Sun 02 Nov 2008 15:03:17 GMT+1 Martin Herbert Coincidentally, as it 'appens, I've 'ad Russel Brand's granny. Sun 02 Nov 2008 08:38:11 GMT+1 Andrew Believe it or not, I have just heard it, via YouTube, for the first time. It was worse than I ever expected. The presenters are juvenile in the extreme, but what is worse they have no respect for the feelings of others. I was once a victim of telephone message calls, and it is amazing how powerless you feel. How can people like these, who obviously do not consider anyone else's feelings, be allowed to broadcast on the BBC.I can't imagine Andrew Sachs laughing at this. The most puerile thing, however, is that they continued to make other phone calls, and repeated his name again and again. I hope something like this happens to them one day ... Sat 01 Nov 2008 14:55:07 GMT+1 stalisman It was a joke?Was it realy?'fraid not old son,. it was rude and that's why you jumped before you were kicked.Don't play hanky panky with 'oh it's all my fault', those who let it go are by far the worst offenders.Obese, heavy sallaried persons in a comfort zone, dissproportionate to their responsibilities, deserve to be moved to fodder .. even if they resign first. Sat 01 Nov 2008 12:17:35 GMT+1 Biloxi Junction By 'eck. We wouldn't have had this sort of shenanigan from the likes of Little Jimmy Clitheroe and Tommy Handley. Fri 31 Oct 2008 12:02:22 GMT+1 Andrew I feel really sorry for Jonathan Ross. He'll have to survive for a year on only 4½ million! However will he manage ... Fri 31 Oct 2008 07:26:02 GMT+1 onjournalism It is indeed, as 'this week' tonight indicates, a trivial issue that has intriguingly found its way into a media storm at a time when there are so many more pressing problems facing the country and the world.The 'decency' standard, whatever it is, should not be applied to comedians who are paid to make a mockery of what is assumed to be right in in a same way as it to, say, politicians whose duty is anything but entertaining people.Newsnight even brought up some line in 'Mock the Week', which is entirely predictable. The comedians, like the 'problematic' youth, have been warned.I am not saying that the media is immune from any decency guidelines. But its primary function is to provide a debate for multiple voices--not to impose or reinforce fixed moral principles. Fri 31 Oct 2008 00:35:12 GMT+1 1967Ross It seems that bad taste comedy has come full circle and ironically bitten the BBC on the backside.During the 70's we had all that appalling, cheap Bernard Manning/Jim Davidsonesque comedy that was generated at the expense of offending others, ie women and ethnic minorities. Then, in the late 70s and throughout the 80s, (led by the BEEB) a series of younger comedians steered younger audiences away from mainstream, politically incorrect rubbish towards intelligent, sometimes well observed, sometimes anarchic, humour. Yes, it might not have appealed to everyone, but what it didn't involve was getting cheap laughs at the expense of deliberately offending individuals.The above points made by Mark Easton talk of the young stirring things up, generation gaps, etc. But the point is that this type of comedy (including prank phone calls) is nothing new; it's been done before. The only difference is that this brand of comedy doesn't set out to offend people because of the colour of their skin or their culture; instead, in this particular instance, it's telling a 78 year old man that you XXXXXX their grand daughter. So here we are, 30+ years later, and the BBC are prepared to air appalling, cheap comedy at the expense of directly offending someone just to entertain their younger audience.30 years ago the BBC took comedy out of the dark ages. It appears that it's prepared to take us back there for the sake of ratings. Thu 30 Oct 2008 23:46:35 GMT+1 Jennigee I think it was WHO it was rather than WHAT was said. It would have had much less impact if it had been someone who'd have given as good as they got........picking on one of our best loved and elder statesmen of comedy actors was not a good idea!! Had it been a contemporary of Russell Brand, I doubt it would have even got a mention. Thu 30 Oct 2008 22:12:57 GMT+1 a_bit_of_crumpet I wonder what percentage of those who found this funny actaully contribute to the BBC's coffers via the licence fee? There is edgy humour, and then there is crass and hurtful. Disappointed in Jonathan Ross, quite like the chap. As for Brand, meh. Thu 30 Oct 2008 20:30:23 GMT+1 Goggleboxwatcher I don't believe anyone can accuse Jonathan Ross of appealing to the teenage market. He comes across as a rather sad sleezy middle-aged man who ought to grow up. Mass audience he is not. At £6m a year of Licence payers money he is criminally overpaid. Thu 30 Oct 2008 17:19:31 GMT+1 oldgunner What on earth in my last comment 'broke the house rules'? You must be kidding!All I said was:You're right about the maturation process stopping in the case of Ross.He's certainly been 'reaching for the green hair dye' for the past ten years or more, but now the game's up.He was so keen to appear cool with his cooler young friend Russ that he let loose the 'you (expletive deleted) his granddaughter' remark like a silly schoolboy and then when the stuff hit the fan, left it to Brand to do the right thing and resign.Ross, by virtue of his attempts to appear edgy and hip, lives by the sword and should therefore be dealt with by receiving the chop. The only trouble is, he seems to be having an uncharacteristically quiet period while he finds a sword to fall on, in the hope we'll all forget and forgive. What a pathetic wimp. Thu 30 Oct 2008 14:25:59 GMT+1 Drumbeater All this hoo-ha about generations, and the licence fee etc. etc. ad nauseam. The point is that two highly paid, and suposedly 'responsible' adults conducted themselves in a manner reminiscent of two 17-18 year old 'lager louts' who were bored on a Friday night and decided to ring a number on a phone and make extremely rude comments. Yes, Andrew Sachs was due to be on the programme, and yes he cancelled his appearance, but does that mean he is a legitimate target for these two idiots to ring up and leave offensive messages about his grand-daughter on his answerphone? If anyone else did it, the police would be round knocking on their door and possibly charging them with an offence under the telecommunications act. And why does the fact that 4 out of 5 young people think it was OK make it all right to break the law? That sort of thinking means that you will indeed be living in a society where the lowest common denominator rules. For heaven's sake, let's make manners, decency and consideration for others part of our society again, before it's too late and we all sink into a pit of rudeness, abusiveness, and rule of might over right. Well done Jonathan though for actually apologising and sending flowers - he might have made one mistake, but to continue with this 'mistake' 3 or 4 times just shows that he has lost all sense of what is due to other people's feelings. Oh, and by the way, if you're writing on this blog, can we have a bit more punctuation, gramma and spelling? Thu 30 Oct 2008 13:48:00 GMT+1 Henry Tudor I love Ross and Brand and I'm 49. At what age do I 'turn the corner', mind you my father loves them too, so perhaps I've a while to go yet! Thu 30 Oct 2008 11:54:56 GMT+1 oldgunner This post has been Removed Thu 30 Oct 2008 11:00:53 GMT+1 Spytrx lolavegas:en contrais - Brand mumbled a sorry to the media and his agent made a statement. Ross' manager made a statement of apology, but Ross himself was also man enough to write a personal letter of apology and send flowers! Now that to me is a huge difference in attitude and taking responsibility. It also makes me question as to why Brand quitt his job at the Beeb - probably because he already has a much better offer with a rival network ready to sign on his agents desk. Thu 30 Oct 2008 10:39:06 GMT+1 Bob Hutton 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! Thu 30 Oct 2008 10:27:10 GMT+1 Bob Hutton Memo to BBC: Please replace this week's "Friday Night with Jonathan Ross" with some Fawlty Towers re-runs! Thu 30 Oct 2008 09:42:12 GMT+1 blogbag 50Yeah right Dross gave a genuine apology, so why did it take him days and days to do this? This pathetic squirt is just trying to save his skin or hold out for compensation. If he had any decency he would resign as well. One suspects that Bland is being used as the fall guy to save this scumbags career. Dross should resign forthwith and spend more time with his family and our millions. Lyons and Thompson should also be sacked for utter incompetence. Thu 30 Oct 2008 09:21:02 GMT+1 blogbag Why not give us a choice then? All those who want Bland/ Dross and the rest of the BBC crass output can pay for it and the rest of us don't have to. I would happily give up all BBC channels to be free of the poll tax. Then we would see how long this lot would survive. In any case the BBC isn't a public service broadcaster now anyway - reality shows, 24 hr news, soaps, cookery programmes, lifestyles. lottery etc we can get this all on the commercial channels. Oh and how come you have a better chance of a job at the BBC if your name is Snow, Dimbleby, Magnusson or Coren? Thu 30 Oct 2008 09:08:27 GMT+1 lolavegas They apologised, the apology was accepted this witch hunt is getting ridiculous. I am 45, not that young and I adore them both and was looking forward to Russells appearance on 'Buzzcocks' this week.I hardly watch the BBC apart from 'Friday Night' so I won't be tuning in to any replacement.Andrew Sachs Grand Daughter is earning a fortune and receiving a large slice of publicity...doesn't look that 'upset' to me!!! Thu 30 Oct 2008 08:51:46 GMT+1 kencharman This is trade(mark)easton. A contortion to extract a paternalistic balanced liberal (small l) view after common sense was impudent enough to break out. Try as you might Mark you and the BBC have failed to portray this a simple age gap issue (typical of the age gap conflicts that are present in all eras and all societies). The fact that this "prank" featured a forty plus year old - who is a role model for many forty plus year olds - kind of explodes that idea. Unfortunately, there are too many people who no longer grow up. They are tremendously successful at "pushing boundaries" and when establishment organisations like Auntie give their support - the message that the whole of our civilisation hears is that the boundary is in the wrong place. As with dogs you need to constantly respond and deter unacceptable behaviour otherwise you will do the opposite and "accept" new norms. Do we really want to allow naughty rebellious youngsters to set the national stadard or should we send a clear message of disapproval - as successful civilisations throughout history have always managed to do.For once can we accept middle class, middle age common sense has got it right - even if it feels a little bit reactionary to the modern aunts at the BBC. Thu 30 Oct 2008 08:49:08 GMT+1 SheffSJ I love this level of debate - it's great. If you're a fan, and I am, I urge you to write and complain to the BBC in whatever way you feel. This is what I basically said (it's long and probably moderated!).I am disappointed in three main ways. Firstly, it appears that the BBC's 'reputation' concerns are winning out over common sense. This appears to be the actions of an organisation working to protect outside interests rather than focussing on its remit to produce informative and educative programming to suit its licence payers. Championship, or at least equality, for this remit is surely key for a British Institution which has influenced and supported innovation in UK culture for decades.Secondly, it appears that far from being innovative, the BBC seems to be supporting staid populist views. This reeks of 'lowest common denominator' management decision-making. It also, from a public view-point, looks like pandering to the media (particularly the Telegraph and The Mail), which seems like a negative thing to do, particularly in the current UK political and economic climate. In this licence-payer's eyes, the BBC has always been an organisation that supported liberal values. An example of this is actively supporting the (perhaps peculiarly British) tradition of pushing boundaries within a comedic context.Thirdly, it appears that despite its educational/cultural/innovative remit, the BBC is not sending out positive messages about the way to treat employees. The BBC does not appear to be actively defending/supporting its staff/contractors in this matter. Surely the role of any British Institution is to especially support people who appear to be creative and innovative in what they are doing (and also likely to be the ones most likely to draw criticism).My personal view is that whilst there is no doubt that there was a high level of childishness (/humour) in the content of the show, there was also real remorse and the capacity to deal with the matter personally. If the individuals contravened BBC policy, then it should be dealt with appropriately by their line managers.The BBC has always appeared to me to be an organisation that respects and challenges 'the public' as intelligent individuals, capable of coming to their own conclusions. Personally, I have listened to the show in question. I think that Chris Moyles' frequent ‘gay’ comments are more worthy of a sacking. Finally...I am slightly embarrassed myself in becoming involved with what could essentially be a media bike-show with the main beneficiaries the artists in question, and - ultimately (assuming certain outcomes) the BBC itself, but...Essentially, I am a BBC customer and write to you of my own almost tangible despair at the idea of not being able to listen to next week's Russell Brand podcast or perhaps to actively seek out a Jonathan Ross broadcast. I’ll be tuning in to the BBC less. I guess you're having a difficult time right now – sorry about that. :) xx Thu 30 Oct 2008 02:39:01 GMT+1 Spytrx raithfan78:Wow - hang on there sport! The reason Jordan and the Beckhams get that much stick is because they live off it. They are in the limelight, as are the Royals. Correct me if I am wrong, but Mr Sachs has been retired for a long time as an actor and voice over artist and was never one to seek headlines in the tabloids or those 50p gossip mags you get at the checkout. His granddaughter was certainly not to be found in there either - and you are saying she asked for it because somebody in her family was famous?It is a sad state of affairs where a world allows it to be a 'fact to ridicule celebrities' to such an extend that lewd messages can be left on their answering services without consequence. Try that with any public figure (or Royal for that matter) and you find yourself behind bars - as for Joe Public you will end up in court if you do that. No, the likes of Brand and Ross have to learn that they are part of this society we live in - and moreover that most of us pay their fat paychecks every month. A criminal offense is never an act of comedy - no matter how you want to spin it. Thu 30 Oct 2008 02:02:53 GMT+1 Daisyflower99 Jonathan Ross should be spared the condemnation. He's been drawn into something and sincerely apologised. It was Russell Brand's show and he and his production team should take the flack. Yes, Jonathan Ross is paid way too much, but he brings much needed laughter and light relief to broadcasting! Thu 30 Oct 2008 01:29:21 GMT+1 Perless Well i'm 45, and I don't find this offensive at all - what I do find offensive is the outdated censorship of the BBC. Thu 30 Oct 2008 00:29:10 GMT+1 raithfan78 To Canukqc,It is a fact that if you are a celebrity, for whatever reason, then you are open to ridicule. Much worse has been said about others without this backlash (Jordan, Royals, the Beckhams). Had Mr Sachs and his granddaughter risen above it and said nothing, then this would not be news. But then there would be no publicity.I agree that it sounds like two 12 year olds messing around. It gets dumber every time, therefore how could you take it seriously? It was hardly an obscene message, (not that I condone what was said) and if it was the biggest problem in my life I'd press delete, forget it and count my blessings. I'm not a fan of either DJ but I think there are far worse scandals and more worthy news stories than this.If Manuel was not offensive why would the Spanish broadcaster of Fawlty Towers change Manuel's name to Paolo and his home town to Naples, Italy. Catalonian broadcaster TV3 made Mexico his homeland. Not the actions of a nation proud of a character.To AugherI think it was bang on topic. Generational divide and shocking the older generation being the subjects?My "sweeping generalisations" were part of a response designed to show how similar comments made earlier on this board and on HYS, targeting the young and RB/JR sympathisers, were redundant. By reversing the accusations I was hoping that readers would see that stereotypes, and sweeping generalisations, are useless. Everyone forms, and is entitled to, their own opinion. It was an attack on the narrow minded who think people can be pigeon holed.Take offense at I.D cards, energy prices, Iraq, reality TV, human rights violations, pollution, the looming recession, massive company profits, animal extinction and corrupt government. Not this. Wed 29 Oct 2008 23:50:29 GMT+1 MalhamCove Interesting perspective Mark and one I might have had more sympathy with, however, having taken some time out to read the transcripts of the calls made by Messers Brand and Ross, I was pretty shocked and appauled by the language used - and I'm only 35!I am wondering why these offensive remarks were not edited out of the programme? Could this be because the editorial filter wasn't strong enough or would not be willing to risk offending the presenters above the public or Mr Sachs?I understand that it's a thin line between this type of comedy entertainment and the risk of offending people, but there must be a line and that responsibility must ultimately rest with the the editorial team for a programme that was pre-recorded and edited prior to gracing the airwaves. Wed 29 Oct 2008 23:12:13 GMT+1 Bob Hutton 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. Wed 29 Oct 2008 22:54:56 GMT+1 Spytrx Isn't it delightful?I made a comment that drew a close comparison to the real world and somebody (not the author of this blog) felt it too offensive to be posted here - yet it was all just suggestive and not even in the slightest as explicit as Brand and Ross were on the phone to A.Sachs (yes, dear complainer, you certainly have a very vivid imagination if you read more into that sentence then I have written - and still you failed to understand what I was getting at).It just goes to show how low some people are willing to let moral standards and society sink... Wed 29 Oct 2008 22:22:25 GMT+1 nonaverageviewer Hold on a minute!Hands up if you have been to a recording of a 'Jonathan Ross' show!For those of you who have had the pleasure, you will know that this guy can turn a simple 30 minute recording of a show into a monumental 4 hour spectacular, in which the studio audience are subjected to and 'Somewhat relate' to his ramblings no matter what the content. This is as expected.I know that in a four hour studio recording only 26 minutes will be edited to fit the 'slot' of the show. Is this not the same in Radio? It has been well documented that this was a pre-recorded show!Should the blame not be on the shoulders of the 'Senior Executives' at the BBC who love their titles of 'Producer' and 'Execuive Producer'. It is not on their shoulders, especially when shows are pre-recorded, to make the editorial judgement and edit the controversial pieces 'out' of the Broadcast.This does not, in no way!, make the calls that they made Acceptable! However there is a fine line between comedy genious and downright Insult! What these guys did was to go with the comedic flow, step over the line once or twice (albeit in studio conditions), yet be let down by the senior 'Luvvies' at the BBC who review these 'Pre-Recorded' shows and sign them off (in triplicate) so that they are good to go to 'Air'.Is it 'Brand and Ross' that are the 'Evil' face here? Yes, they did overstep the mark, but where are the faceless BBC Execs who passed this material as 'Ready for 'Go Live'? Wed 29 Oct 2008 21:44:18 GMT+1 lisatheiconoclast The ones who appear to find Wossy & Brandy's comments funny seem to be those dismal "Lads" whose idea of humour consists mostly of hurting people.I bet they pull the legs off flies!How would Wossy feel if someone in future years makes vile comments about his daughter, not only to her family, but everyone watching TV as well? Wed 29 Oct 2008 21:39:19 GMT+1 Anne Sullivan I am not impressed by your take on this. Ascribing the reaction to a 'generation gap' sounds just like the 'boys will be boys' argument that has been used for centuries to justify all levels of misbehavior, from thoughtless pranks to full blown criminal mischief. Whether you normally like their comedic style or not, these 2 crossed the line and reached outside their show with an obscene and unnecessary attack. It was stupid and childish, and they whoever was stupid enough to let that portion go on the air needs a serious lesson in common sense.However, to imply that all 'young' people think this is okay is pretty offensive. You base your theory on an analysis of the emails and text sent in by the listenening audience, but that doesn't tell you the age of the listeners!! People of all ages found this offensive, just like there were varying ages of people who did not. And then there is the large number of people that find it offensively stupid rather than just plain offensive.... Wed 29 Oct 2008 21:28:46 GMT+1 boopbetty1000 Perhaps that's why there were only two complaints at the time ... no-one was listening! Therefore why was Brand being paid so much?My teenage children couldn't see a problem; I thought it was a bit wide of the mark and not what I would call Entertainment.The media hype which has ensued is what really grates! Wed 29 Oct 2008 21:24:49 GMT+1 dictostelium Its really quite simple - if this behaviour paid for out of public funds is condoned, it gives implicit permisison for anyone to behave to anyone else absolutely however they want to at the time. As a society we can't afford that kind of attitude. The proper way to deal with these two is for the police to prosecute them under the telecommunications act, because what they have carried out is illegal harrasment. And Brand's apology was still really not an apology - he just doesnt get it, and neither do many of the audience that he and Ross have for their shows. Wed 29 Oct 2008 20:55:22 GMT+1 Bloofs As a 29 year-old (sort of young, but not young enough to be a target demographic for Radio 1) I didn't approve of the broadcast. The main issue is not entirely about the content - the issue is the recording onto the voicemail and the mentioning of the granddaughter - who had nothing to do with the show and had not been asked for an interview. I think young people who have been bullied themselves (via text or mobile phone) may feel a twinge of recognition when a voicemail containing abuse is played back.So, I'm young(ish), and I was offended. Please don't generalise. As you say, 4 out 5 responses to 1Xtra were supportive. But that still left 20% of 'youths' who also felt offended.I'm actually surprised that the figure of young listeners who were offended was as high as that, even.This shows that actually there is a broad consensus, from the DG, to nearly all middle-aged people, to a large minority of young people, who felt the show was offensive.Besides, how old is Jonathan Ross? Wed 29 Oct 2008 20:30:33 GMT+1 john1674 I know that this is a trite comment but… Well I can’t help noticing that several posts are awaiting moderation, I can only assume that the authors are not paid sixty-odd grand from the public purse! Wed 29 Oct 2008 20:27:23 GMT+1 john1674 I’m fifty-three years old and firmly believe that Alan Titchmarsh should be confined to the nethermost pit of Hell… a new series of “Old Harry’s Game”? At the same time I watch and enjoy the Buzzcocks. But here’s the crux, this piece of media was not a prank, nor was it comedy.Two grown men repeatedly left abusive material on a third party’s answer phone. This is a crime at best, at worst it was a vitriolic attack. Had Ross and Brand made their views and comments public over the air without actually leaving personal messages on Mr Sachs’ voice mail I would have put it down to bad taste, as it is I consider it inexcusable.If you think that this intrusion on someone’s privacy is legitimate I suggest that you ask your email provider to remove all spam filters from your account.Making ribald comments about people in public life in the name of comedy is not new, most topical comedy programming on the radio and TV relies upon it, the subjects sign up for this when they seek celebrity. Invading one’s personal domain is unacceptable and all of us take steps to counter it. That two people could use personal information obtained from the BBC in order to make abusive phone calls worries me… after all, the BBC has my details! Wed 29 Oct 2008 20:15:42 GMT+1 Augher Raithfan78Nice to have a nice balanced view without any sweeping generalisations. Naturally everyone older than you is racist. Just the kind of argument to win the day! And so relevant to the topic under discussion. Abusing everyone else is of course hilarious. Have you considered that maybe some younger people do not approve of obscene 'phone calls and that maybe some older people are almost as "broad minded" as you.Well you wouldn't consider things like that would you.Point is distateful to make a point is one thing. Purile abuse is another and its definitely not new or cutting edge. We have always had people who behaved this way. Sadly people obviously do find it amusing. Wed 29 Oct 2008 20:08:26 GMT+1 The Vicar Mark Easton you've got it so wrong, as was the news, portraying that this furore is generational. And how old is 'old'? I'm in my 30s and my friends and colleagues of all ages object to the humor Brand and Ross subjected Sachs to. The generational difference is that younger people seem to think the fuss is out of proportion.Yesterday i complained about the incident. But Russell Brand should NOT be the fall guy. Ross is equally culpable, and the production team even more so. They should all be sacked. PS i actually like Russell Brand! he has the charm, wit and talent to carry this humour, whereas Ross' comedy is lazy and he's too old and mainstream for such smut. Wed 29 Oct 2008 20:04:30 GMT+1 aazzz60 In this day and age of people worried about their jobs and their house, we have idiots like ROSS throwing 6 million in our faces with the sick comedy he comes up with, will he be standing at the job centre waiting for employment, which is where he deserves to be, may be he will be worrying where his kids Christmas present will come from or will he be able to pay the gas bill? Wed 29 Oct 2008 20:02:30 GMT+1 Wednesday89 If their behaviour is not considered to be gross misconduct then there is clearly a gaping hole in the BBC's employment policy. Their behaviour was by most reasonable employment standards gross misconduct and in most reasonable organisations gross misconduct gives rise to instant dismissal. Wed 29 Oct 2008 19:53:40 GMT+1 canukqc As someone in my early 20s, my biggest concern here is how so many young people don't think this is wrong. Will things like this be generally acceptable in 20,30,40 years time? Is that the society that we are going to be living in?To raithfan78, I have listened to the whole thing and it sounds like two 12 year olds messing around, once the initial "apology" was made they called back 3 or 4 times each time making it worse, just because something is "good-natured" doesn't mean that anyone has the right to publicly humilate another person (especially as he wasn't there to defend himself). And how many Spaniards were offended by Sach's character Manuel? It wasn't racist, it was more a satirical swipe at cheapskates who employed immigrants for a pittance and then got frustrated when they didn't speak English. Wed 29 Oct 2008 19:43:05 GMT+1 Augher I find it outrageous that you should suggest all young people approve of people who make obscene 'phone calls. Sadly it is true that the less vocal majority of younger people are drowned out by those who support loutish behaviour. Distasteful comedy is fine .. even from these two oldish farts ... but this went way beyond that. There is no cutting edge comedy to these two. They do not say anything which hurts the establishment. " Have I Got News For You" is more cutting edge, funnier and does challenge the establishment. There are plenty of young alternative comedians who are sometimes distasteful but usually have a point to make. These two are just ignorant and without talent. The culture of the loudmouth idiot down the pub is being sold to us as humour. The difference is he is not usually someone who makes obscene 'phone calls. I do not believe this issue has anything to do with age. When did Jonathon Ross become young?! Wed 29 Oct 2008 19:42:29 GMT+1 bl0tt0 So Russell Brand has resigned; a triumph for small-minded mediocrity. At least he shows greater integrity than the majority of politicians that have rushed to grace us with their opinions on this rather over-blown issue.I didn't hear the programme myself and therefore do not feel qualified to comment on its content. I am personally more offended by the hours of bland programming foisted on us by the BBC and other broadcasters, than by what would appear to be a prank that got a bit out of hand. Wed 29 Oct 2008 19:36:01 GMT+1 2muchhype Is this Brass Eye all over again?Once again the hypocrisy of the tabloids (Daily Mail I'm talking to you!) have caused a non-news item to dominate the headlines.Is this really more important than earthquakes in Pakistan, the imminent recession and the election of a new US President?I, as a listener of the Russell Brand show, would be interested to see how many of the thousands of complainers had actually listened to the show in question to get some context to the matter (I see the posting below mistakenly assumes the show aired on Radio 1!!!)The BBC was well aware of Brand's particular style of anarchic humour when they hired him, and there's a reason that Ross gets paid so much!Maybe it was wrong of them to leave the messages on Mr Sachs' answer machine but Sachs was well aware that he was meant to be on the show publicising a new TV programme, so why didn't he answer the phone for the pre-arranged interview?And as for the grand daughter... I wonder how much Max Clifford managed to sell her story to the tabloids for?This is a textbook case of a mountain being made out of a molehill! Wed 29 Oct 2008 19:26:05 GMT+1 johnnym99 ROSS = SELF, SELF, SELFBRAND = SELF, SELF, SELFNot worth a lightGood riddance.Don't return Wed 29 Oct 2008 19:22:33 GMT+1 markusgl1 isn't nice that something else is all over the press instead of the US election, Wed 29 Oct 2008 19:04:58 GMT+1 paulette2004 I am a pensioner, trying very hard to live on the pittance the state allows me to have. Out of this money I HAVE to pay for a TV licence.If the puerile immature idiots at the BBC think that making a thoroughly offensive phone call to a well-respected actor by two talentless, crude, coarse and overpaid individuals is even remotely amusing I would suggest the dole queue should be the next stop.The BeeB once had a reputation both for cutting edge programmess - a prime example being TW3 - as well as a standard of decency. I have followed Jonathan Ross's so-called career for many years - in my opinion he has always been both talentless and crude and it beats me why the BeeB toadies round him. He certainly wouldn't get work anywhere else.Russell Brand used to be funny. Wed 29 Oct 2008 18:27:27 GMT+1 raithfan78 This is a sad reflection on an ill-informed, reactionary and abusive older generation. If you had taken the time to listen to the broadcast, instead of reading a headline or watching the news, you would know that any offense was good natured. They praise Mr Sachs then discuss why he hasn't appeared on the show, leading to Jonathan Ross making a stupid quip about Sachs granddaughter. Mr Ross, having not thought about what he said, apologised seconds after the comment. It's stupid not vindictive. I suppose the racist older generation would support an actor who made his name offending Spaniards over someone making a mistake. Moral decline? As opposed to the greedy, earth killing, warmongering reprobates of every generation past? At least we can take a joke. Wed 29 Oct 2008 18:22:50 GMT+1 Laskha I can't believe the hype, no i mean the descriptions of Ross and Brand as talented!The decision will ultimately be made based on the future of the BBC, and its financing. Regardless of who heard the original broadcast, its clear that a divide has appeared. A significant number of licence fee payers found the comments, behaviour etc.. offensive perhaps more so coming from two highly paid members of staff. A significant number of people have voiced their support. The problem for the BBC is that the larger portion of these vocal groups are current licence fee payers.When the BBC needs to go cap in hand to HMG asking for an extension to the licence fee or the next rise episodes like this will surface and will mix into discussions. Those in support appear to be largely coming from younger generations, a significant number that currently do not pay a licence fee..the problem for the BBC is that they will in future.Will the licence fee be around when they start paying? If they ignore the current vocal majority there is a good chance it might not be..and the BBC might be trying to fight its way in an ordinary commercial market place. Wed 29 Oct 2008 18:22:22 GMT+1 John Ellis Im sorry to say but if this was 2 young people they would be labbled chav scum but again money buys grace.these 2 lackwits may be funny at times but they have a massive audiance of young people who will now see this as the correct way to behave towards the older generations. If these 2 continue to work for the bbc then it says something about the moral standards that the BBC has finaly slipped to and demonstate to everyone that its alright to abuse people in thier own homes. Wed 29 Oct 2008 18:16:23 GMT+1 WhiteEnglishProud 17 You put my thought so much more concisely than i could ever have done Wed 29 Oct 2008 18:11:42 GMT+1 enzojmacca I would like to lodge a long-awaited complaint against the creators of the show "Fawlty Towers" and Mr. Andrew Sachs personally for their despicably crude and excessively disparaging depiction of Hispanic people. Who knows the countless lives that were harmed by their negative portrayal of a perfectly nice race of people. The show should have been axed while it was still on air but given that the series is finished I will settle for the profits that were made from that show being reappropriated and repaid to the license payer. I would also like to add that Andrew Sachs is a very bad person who should be punished to any degree felt necessary by the angry mob that I intend to shortly assemble for this purpose. We demand revenge on behalf of all Spanish people. Wed 29 Oct 2008 18:08:09 GMT+1 DrJimble Quite incredible that 'delminister' should talk about 'moral decline' and 'decency' whilst comparing Russell Brand with proven child sex offender gary glitter! Unbelievable! How about we get some sense of realism and perspective here. Russell Brand is a critically acclaimed stand up comedian who is known for his outspoken approach and occasionally misjudged comments. He himself admits that these have caused him a great deal of upset, shame, embarassment and regret in the past. He is also, by the same token, exciting, edgy and often hilariously funny - as those people who ACTUALLY listen to his show on a regular basis would already know. It is for this reason that his broadcasts come with a warning that 'some listeners' may find its content offensive. You have the right to tune into something else or turn the radio off for a couple of hours a week!They have apologised for their mistake, nobody has been killed. There are more imprtant issues in the world. Get a grip people! Wed 29 Oct 2008 18:00:43 GMT+1 Andrew I am glad that there have been suspensions, and now a resignation.Just a couple of thoughts:It has been noted that there were only two complaints straight after the broadcast. Cuold this be because no-one, except those who would not complain, knew about it? When they did know, the decent populace looked at it and saw it as unacceptable.I have just seen the grand-daughter on TV. Might it not have been more appropriate, bearing in mind the context, if for this interview she had less make-up, a less-slinky hairstyle, and a less-revealing dress! Wed 29 Oct 2008 17:46:15 GMT+1 Spytrx This post has been Removed Wed 29 Oct 2008 17:26:05 GMT+1 terrigar This post has been Removed Wed 29 Oct 2008 17:15:55 GMT+1 Freddie I think the whole thing is blown out of proportion. First of all this pre-recorded show should have never been broadcasted. It went out, ok, nothing we can change now, but why did it take the BBC so long to issue an official statement? This should have happened immediately after the first complaint came in. Not everyone shares Jonathan Ross and Russel Brand's humour but that doesn't mean that they aren't funny or should be sacked. They apologised. End of story. Wed 29 Oct 2008 17:06:00 GMT+1 familyl The alleged generational divide was not beautifully illustrated by last night's news item. Rather it was predictable and prejudged. My challenging, actor-musician early twenties son was infuriated by that news item, and is thoughtfully but strongly of the opinion that Brand and Ross stepped way over any acceptable mark. Wed 29 Oct 2008 16:57:34 GMT+1 blogbag Not it is not a generation divide. The reality is that mature grown ups have had enough and the BBC is yet again trying to play it down. The reality is that those who pay the regressive poll tax to this organisation (to fund the rude fat cats who are above the law) and have no choice have finally had enough and no amount of baised reporting by you Mr Easton and your colleague Mr McKenzie will get round this. Your jobs are under threat so you defend your employer and blame it on the old, right wing and reactionary media and you say the young defend you - stereotyping and vested interests at its worst. The majority have had enough of the BBC and want to get rid of it. We are not just sick of fuel and food bills but are sick of paying for you lot. At least at ITV they get rid of people unlike you featherbedded lot. All the bogs, complaints and HYS have been swamped with hard working people who are sick to death of the BBC - we no longer want to pay for this so called public service broadcasting and you are carefully stopping reporting these to balance it out because you know that you are having your come uppance. Wed 29 Oct 2008 16:27:46 GMT+1 coastwalker I think that in this case its less that Ross and co did shocking things to appeal to the young than they did something borderline illegal. It is more a reflection of young peoples lack of respect for the law. Even if it is the case that older people value respectful behaviour more than young people this is still wrong. It is not funny to humiliate people for a laugh. We do not condone bullying or racism so why is it funny to make insulting phone calls and broadcast them?I'm 48 and I still think Monty Python is clever funny, but these two are just coarse fools. Wed 29 Oct 2008 16:26:10 GMT+1 threnodio The whole thing seems utterly stupid to me. It is a little bit like the 7 million odd people who dismiss The Sun as a rag and then go out and spend perfectly good money on it.If you don't like what you are hearing on the wireless, switch over or better still, turn the damn thing off and let the big kids play chavs on their own. Wed 29 Oct 2008 16:21:08 GMT+1 Polly S "But what happens if the maturation process stops? Imagine legions of callow youths still determinedly trying to shock as they enter middle age. It would be an offence to nature"Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Messrs Ross and Brand. Wed 29 Oct 2008 16:20:33 GMT+1 darlingeleanora I am 58.Never failed to tune in to Ross and Russel BI am insulted that people seem to be of the opinion that there is a generation divide in opinions.I don't mind risque .I don't object to smut .( I bought Russel's first book)it is the illocutionary force that's in question on this occasion; and in my opininion it was sheer self indulgence on the part of these two people.How would Ross feel if such comments had been made about his daughter or future grandchild-----TO A WIDE AUDIENCE.We have to draw the line somewhere.These men get off on having power .I think iit should be taken from them.They're not all that .They're not irreplaceable.Already I have watched Al Murray occasionally in recent times and I have switched to Galaxy from Chris Moyles who is now totally up his own Jaxy and enjoys control.The country's already going to the dogs through the greed of bankers.Don't let the BBC rely on greedy egotistics too.What happened to consideration and Common courtesy? Regards Eleanor. Wed 29 Oct 2008 16:19:02 GMT+1 neoScottii I cannot believe that you in the BBC newsroom allowed another 'has been' radio presenter from Absolute Radio to bad mouth the grand daughter of Andrew Sachs. in the middle of this afternoon you allowed this person to suggest that Sachs' grand daughter 'probably wanted to be with Russell brand'. Why do you continue to allow these idiots air time? you do a once great institution a great disservice. Wed 29 Oct 2008 16:13:19 GMT+1 Snowdon Lily Jonathan Ross is nearing the age of 50 - when is he going to grow up?Of course you will get a divide between the ages on something like this, but I would suggest the majority of licence payers feel Brand and Ross's behaviour puerile, childish and pathetic.I do hope they are not receiving their full pay while on suspension. I don't know what Brand earns, but Ross is not worth £60,000 a year, let alone £6,000,000. Wed 29 Oct 2008 16:10:58 GMT+1 Shtiffirgkram You're right to see this as a generational thing, but not in the way you're portraying it. If you'd asked any of that younger crew the question 'Is it OK for Russ-Ross to phone your 78 year-old grandparent and cause them stress through personal abuse?' I think you might find different answers then. As for the young shocking the old - Ross is 49 or 50. Brand is 30 or 31. Neither of them is young. They're just working very, very hard to convince people they are young. When you try too hard in this kind of way you can forget your humanity. And, more importantly, in this case - someone else's. Wed 29 Oct 2008 15:55:02 GMT+1 industrymember But what happens if the maturation process stops? Imagine legions of callow youths still determinedly trying to shock as they enter middle age. It would be an offence to apt description of the two people involved.... Wed 29 Oct 2008 15:51:27 GMT+1 thelovelyangryman I want to complain about Andrew Sachs despicible portrayal of Spanish people as bumbling idiots!!! This kind of racism is wrong and we should act now. Of course i'm not being serious as i do realise that humour is very often at the expense of others and belive it or not most people wouldn't want it any other way. When did we get so sensitive that we feel that we have a god given right not to be offended? Wed 29 Oct 2008 15:48:08 GMT+1 jayfurneaux This is hardly a challenge to the fabric of society, for that you need some anger and politics behind things as in 68 and (less so) in 76.Today youth programming on all channels is appealing to the lowest common denominator. Sadly young people see it paying off. Swearing chefs are rewarded with riches; Ross is paid a fortune for doing very little that is clever or original. Brand will wear this as a badge of honour. Laddism and celebrity has conquered the political landscape. I`m actually surprised there isn`t more anger about that.The only middle aged presenter who managed to connect with a young audience was John Peel who realised there was sea change in music underway. But it shouldn`t be forgotten that he alienated his former (youthful) audience who vocally hated him for it.As for shocking their elders. Brand is hardly a Lenny Bruce or young Richard Pryor. But they had both politics and anger and knew who their targets were. Wed 29 Oct 2008 15:27:34 GMT+1 Brian_NE37 In normal circumstances I couldn't give a toss how they behave on the program, anyone who listens to it will be prepared for that sort of thing.However, that's all well and good as long as they 'do no harm to others' to paraphrase Google's motto. And in this case they have.It's sad when the average Radio 1 listener is unable to differentiate between tasteless but ultimately harmless fun and the nasty stuff this was.And what is sadder is that BBC voices (including yours apparently) are now defending the piece with reasoning along the lines of "if today's yoof like it then that must by definition be OK" Wed 29 Oct 2008 14:59:07 GMT+1 parisdweller Good point, let's set an age limit for everyone to know when to 'turn the corner'.Of course that in itself would 'calcify' society, which is precisely what you write against.What we need is a good dollop of anarchy. After all, the economy is going that way, why not society? An 'out of the ashes' scenario playing out in a couple of years... Wouldn't that be interesting - there might even be a role reversal - kids becoming docile, and grannies going wild. Wed 29 Oct 2008 14:39:51 GMT+1 delminister your point only shows the moral decline of the younger should the majority bow to the minority, should rubbish like ross and brand become the norm on tv and radio.if so then pull the licence fee and make tv pay per view so those wanting that offensive programming on air will pay for it.there are rules for a reason thus you break the rules you pay the price, so many have fallen foul of the rules and public opinion in the past that these two will be joining a select group of fallen stars like gary glitter, micheal barrimore as untill there is a change in licence fee methods then decency will prevail. Wed 29 Oct 2008 14:30:30 GMT+1