UKC

Did anyone hear these two 'phoning Andrew Sachs with abuse about what Brand was alleging to have done with Sachs' grand-daughter?

Now I'm crude, immature and pretty foul-mouthed. However, even I found their behaviour disrespectful in the extreme. Given that we all pay their over-inflated wages through our licence fees I think we should expect a higher standard of broadcasting.

What's the consensus from the UKC massive?

In reply to wayno265: i'm with you, i love a good joke and swear like a trooper and i normally like jonathons sense of humour but this is not big and not clever

In reply to wayno265: Didn't hear it, but just read an article about it. Don't expect anything better from Brand, but Ross is a bit of a surprise. I think there is a fine line these days between crude and funny, and just plain crude. I think they crossed that line.

In reply to wayno265:

Personaly I found it hillarious, obvoiusly if it was my phone they were ringing id be ripping their nuts off about now, but it wasnt.

In reply to wayno265:

Brand is a pretty contemptible excuse for a human being.

In reply to wayno265: what has their arguably over inflated pay got to do with deciding if it was disrespectful in the extreme?

If they were on £280 a week you would ahve thought it OK?

In reply to Fawksey:


Well for one it wouldn't have been on national radio.

They'd still be a couple of kunts tho'.

In reply to Fawksey: No I wouldn't, but I do think the amount they get paid , effectively from the public purse, does make them more accountable for their actions.

Here's a transcript I've just found. It's worse than I thought from the extract I heard from the radio today:

Russell Brand (RB): "This is Andrew Sachs's answerphone. Right Jonathan, well this is unconventional..

Jonathan Ross (JR): "Don't worry I'll blurt something out"

RB: "Don't blurt something out, not on the answerphone Jonathan.

Andrew Sachs's answerphone: "Sorry I can't answer at the moment, but please call again or leave a message. Speak after the tone, thank you."

RB: "Hello Andrew Sachs this is Russell Brand. I am a great appreciator of your work over the decades. You're meant to be on my show now mate, I don't know why you're not answering the phone, it's a bit difficult - I'm here with Jonathan Ross."

JR: "Hello Andrew..."

RB: "That's Jonathan Ross speaking now. Anyway, we understand.. anyway.. we can still do the interview to his answerphone..."

(The two presenters exchange banter)

JR: "He f***** your granddaughter!" (laughter)... I'm sorry I apologise. Andrew I apologise... I got excited, what can I say. it just came out."

RB: "Andrew Sachs, I did not do nothing with Georgina - oh no I've revealed I know her name! Oh no it's a disaster.

"Abort, abort. Please watch that show. I am out of The Bill, starring Andrew Sachs, I'm out of The Bill... Put the phone down, put the phone down, code red code red. I'm sorry Mr Fawlty I'm sorry, they're a waste of space..."

JR: "... How could I carry that round in my head like a big brain blister all day? I had to pop it and let the pressure out...

"Like it's really bothered us though, he's the poor man sitting at home sobbing over his answer machine...

"If he's like most people of a certain age he's probably got a picture of his grandchildren when they're young right by the phone.

"So while he's listening to the messages he's looking at a picture of her about nine on a swing."

RB: "She was on a swing when I met her. Oh no!"

JR: "And probably enjoyed her."

RB: "Let's ring back Andrew Sachs... What if he answers this time? Oh no Jonathan please. I'll do anything."

(Andrew Sachs's answerphone message comes on for a second time.)

RB: Andrew this is Russell Brand. I'm so sorry about the last message. It was part of the radio show. It was a mistake."

JR: "It was just a joke. If there is any truth in that, I don't know. It was just a joke."

RB: "It was just a joke that we done. I didn't ask him to say it though..."

JR: "It might be true, but we didn't want to break it to you in such a harsh way."

RB: "Ok, look the truth is, Andrew I'm ringing you to ask if I can marry, that's right marry your granddaughter, Georgina the granddaughter."

JR: "And I'd like to be a page boy."

RB: He wants to be a page boy. We're going to have a Fawlty Towers-themed wedding."

JR: "No, no, you've spoiled it..."

RB: "No I'm sorry I'll do anything. I wore a condom. Put the phone down. Oh, what's going to happen?..."

JR: "You'll never become king rat in the Variety Club now Russell Brand."

RB: "Oh no that's over for me. I'm never going to be king rat in the Variety Club. Jonathan I think we've made the situation worse."

JR: "Who'd have thought two people like us could possibly have made the situation worse."

RB: "How could we with all our skills, our social skills, our talents our experiences."

JR: "Our intentions were pure."

RB: "You know the only way we can make this better don't you?"

JR: "Let's phone him again. Let's leave a nice message."

RB: "Listen, we've got to make it better. We'll phone Andrew Sachs back. We've got to stop upsetting Manuel. This time Jonathan I'm convinced we can make it better."

JR: "What should we not mention, the war?"

RB: "Don't mention the war, don't mention his granddaughter. Don't say: 'You only ever played Manuel'... Don't mention The Bill in a negative way. Yes! We'll just sing to him. I'll make up something as I go along."

In reply to Winston Ingram: I need qualative and quantative data with refernces

In reply to wayno265: I cant see anything wrong with that. Sounds like people over reacting again. Did someone tell you to over react?

In reply to Winston Ingram:
The BBC should kick these two self-absorbed, obnoxious, self-indulgent, offensive, obscenely over-paid prats out of their so-called jobs, and make them go out in the "real world" and get "real jobs". Wonder how they would shape up if they insulted e.g. colleagues in a factory or office, without BBC security guards to stop them getting their heads kicked in by their rightly- offended victims. Shamefull behaviour by them, but also by their BBC employers in allowing it in the first place, and then attempting to minimize it.

In reply to Fawksey:

What I find funny is that someone like Big Ron (Atkinson not Fawcett) makes one extremely ill-advised remark, and his broadcasting career is finished, kaput, deid.

These 2 will no doubt regard this escapade as a bit of good publicity.

In reply to peterwales: so its shameful behaviour to make offensive jokes but you believe that mindless violence is acceptable?

What if you only think youre capable of giving soemone a slap and that your victim turns on you and gives you a fractured skull and youve got straw coloured liquid coming from your nose and ears and you cant even call an ambulance because theres bits of bone sticking through the roof of your mouth, would that be OK?

In reply to wayno265:

I heard about it earlier. Never liked them in the first place and would sack them instantly. The BBc will get no licence money off me till they are gone.

In reply to Fawksey:

LOL youve been thinking about this havent you?

In reply to Winston Ingram: What I find fantastic and not necessarily funny is that racism is taboo, you just dont get away with it, if anyones looking or listening anyway. We need now to get the same attitude towards xenophobia and homophobia

In reply to wayno265:

I think Brand is crap and its about as far as his talent goes.

As for your foul mouth wayno I will say nothing...

Fawksey, are you feeling particularly argumentative today?

In reply to wayno265:

If you type Andrew Sachs into Google you'll get a link to the call on UTube. After listening to it you'll be able to judge for yourself.

I listened to a few minutes of it and didn't hear anything particularly offensive. Wasn't that funny either but so what.

Did Andrew Sachs complain?

In reply to wayno265:

Both unfunny men. Older one trying to be as arseish as the younger one because he's losing his grip on the 'yoof'. Quite sad really.

In reply to tanssop:

Now that might not be that far from the truth!

In reply to Removed User: "Did Andrew Sachs complain?"

His agent did on his behalf, apparently.

In reply to wayno265:

could you tell us what your 'standard' scale consists of before i agree because if it's 'whatever wayno decides he doesn't like after the event' then i'll pass :¬)

In reply to rich: I can't really define it qualitatively, but I think we're all entitled to judge the behaviour of others against our own ethics and morals, or the accepted norms of society. What they did went well beyond what I would consider acceptable, but I wouldn't consider my opinion to be any more valid that anyone else's. What I do know is that if I'm shocked by something, a lot of other people are going to be as well!

I think what offends me about it is the fact that it has a victim, someone actually affected. It's not as if they just swore, which people could decide to be offended by or not (I wouldn't be), but they've picked out someone to abuse in a particularly vulgar way like a pair of playground bullies.

Part of my reasoning for posting on UKC is to see how if others viewed it the same as me, or whether my view of it was out-of-step with the general consensus.

In reply to wayno265: on balance what do you think the general concensus was?

In reply to wayno265: nicely put - my point was also fairly serious, if briefer

i suppose it hinges a bit on whether sachs actually was offended - i guess he had a choice of public reactions if you see what i mean

on reflection it's probably the producer's (or similar) balls up for not smoothing it over

In reply to wayno265:

Both Ross and Brand, even before this incident, speak and behave like preening self-satisfied bullies.

That people apparently lap this up & find it amusing is further evidence that most people in this country are feckin morons.

In reply to KeithW:

Evidence? Reference?

In reply to wayno265:


He's probably quite pleased for her that she's getting this publicity.

Particularly if she's so desperate for fame as to be in a band called the Satanic Sluts.

although I must say I do find that name quite arousing

In reply to KeithW:

I must be a moron cause I thought it was incredibly funny, in fact I thought it was so funny I might listen to it again, I don't think you should take either of those two too seriously. Presumably Andrew Sach's was going to be on the show so he could sell himself or something else so maybe he or his agent should have done a bit more research about Russell Brand. RB has talked about his granddaughter before on the show. Wonder what she makes of it all...

In reply to KeithW: Can't be bothered to untangle this thread but I do know that the first exercise I get on a Saturday morning is switching off the wireless after the sublime, calm nostalgia that is Brian Matthew.

In reply to Dominion:


He will have lived a far fuller life and given pleasure to more people (in various ways) than most people on this forum

In reply to trevor simpson: 'He will have lived a far fuller life...than most people on this forum.' As defined by Hello magazine, presumably. What an extraordinarily silly thing to say. Think it through, then come back when you have.

In reply to trevor simpson: I'm willing to concede that he's undoubtedly given pleasure to more people that I have! However, I'm not sure that being a drug addict for years is my definition of living a full life, if that's what you're alluding to.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I got a lot of respect for people who climb, as I do people who shag a lot of women. After all, most men, if they are honest with themselves, would like to do this.

I suspect there are a lot of people on the internet in general who do neither

In reply to wayno265:


I agree, but then from reading his autobiography it sounded like more fun than doing a 9-5 job and being addicted to coronation street

In reply to trevor simpson:


That's no great shakes Trevor; given that most English people can be kept in an ecstatic haze all evening by showing them a village talent show.

In reply to wayno265:

A pair of untalented, over-paid, over-hyped, gormless tw*ts.

In reply to trevor simpson: well coughed trevor! I have some sympathy with your statement, though Ive been celibate for quite some time now.

In reply to trevor simpson: 'I got a lot of respect for people who climb, as I do people who shag a lot of women. After all, most men, if they are honest with themselves, would like to do this.' Well yes, I can rememeber those feelings when I was a boy. Never was prepared to become a tw@t like Brand to achieve it, though. (Yeah yeah, sour grapes... whatever.)

In reply to trevor simpson: I can't say I respect men who shag loads of women. It's tempting to be mildly envious, but then I think of a mate of a mate. He's a personal trainer who shags for England, but apparently in his more reflective moments he admits to be lonely and unfulfilled in life. I don't know, but I suspect RB may be a bit like that.

In reply to Winston Ingram: Hows Jack and Victor getting on? I'm a bit worried about them with this cold snap on the way

In reply to Fawksey:
What on earth makes you feel that I justify violence? My point was that if they lived in the world that most of us inhabit- i.e. that of none special priviledge, -they would have to be mindfull of who they would insult because they would have no special physical protection- (as they undoubtedly do now). That doesn't make me approve of any such hypothetical violence towards them- especially as they are never likely to live the ordinary, less-priviledged lives that most people live anyway.

In reply to peterwales: so youve got some reverse snobbery thing going on? You dont want to ban fox hunting you want to ban people in pink jackets riding about on horses?

If you are so bloody outraged go and stand in a bar in Cardiff ona Saturday night and tell people not to insult each other. Its eems its money and the privilege it can buy thats really your problem.

In reply to trevor simpson:

Well done for bringing some common sense into this, the voice of reason as ever.

In reply to wayno265:

Its not massively funny, but its not really that bad is it?

I never used to like Russel Brand, but when he introduced Bono at the NME awards (I think) and said... "Now live from a satellite orbiting his own ego, BONO!" - he rocketed in my estimations. You should hear the ensuing slanging mate between him and Bob Geldof. Brand wins.

Oh and at the MTV awards this year he ridiculed the whole purity ring bollocks, massively upsetting lots of americans, and just to seal it slated george bush in front of the american audience, which didn't go down well. Now I like him, at least he's got balls.

In reply to wayno265: could any of you people come up with such a funny dialect off the cuff like they did? i for one thought it was comedic genius, especially from russel brand. The song he did was particularly amusing. so what he slept with his grand daughter? she must have agreed to it otherwise it would be rape surely!!!

In reply to bomb: Taking the piss out of Bono and George Bush is fair game in my view. Taunting an elderly man about f*cking his granddaughter isn't. Also worth bearing in mind is the upset they would have caused to the wider family, the mum and dad etc.. I think it comes down to the balance of power - it does take balls to make comments about George Bush in that sort of context; it doesn't take balls to ridicule an old man in such a sustained and offensive way - it takes a bully to do that.

In reply to anthonyecc: I'm not sure whether the sex is consensual or not is quite the issue. Comedic genius? Mmmmm......

In reply to wayno265: Apparently these two semi literate, inarticulate, self opinionated idiots are regarded by many( presumably of a similar mentality) as talented comedians. It says little for the BBC that they allow such offensive behaviour to be aired, It says even less for those who "enjoy" it.

There are and have been many talented, real comedians who have worked hard at their acts. Comedy is a serious business and entails far more skill than merely opening your mouth and saying the first thing that comes into it.

I look forward to hearing that Mr. Sachs, or his granddaughter, is taking legal redress.

In reply to wayno265:

I don't find them funny at all. I am broadminded and have no problem with risque programs, but this was a personal, abusive and insulting attack on another individual who was not party to their immature behaviour. They are a couple of prats, their behaviour was inexcusable, and yes, they should be sacked. However it also seems that this was a pre-recorded program and whoever was responsible for allowing it to be broadcast should also be sacked.

In reply to Trangia:
Agree with all that. And Brand is just creepy, he makes my skin crawl ... the most repulsive man I've seen on tv (not counting the more violent offenders on Crimewatch).

In reply to Trangia: Hear,hear. I'm writing to the BBC.

In reply to wayno265:
The sadness of this is that all the focus is on the so-called celebrities. It's the grand daughter who is the vicitm, the rest is dents to over-inflated egos. Guess it's a reflection of what people see as important, really.

In reply to wayno265: I've just complained to the beeb. Would be a result if the pair got sacked... really cheer people up in these hard times.

C'mon folks... do your bit

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/complaints_stage1.shtml

Trev and Fawksey.... fear not, they'll be signed up by 5 sharpish, you'll get your fix.

In reply to wayno265:

Listening to Radio 4 this morning, it appears that the broadcast was pre-recorded, and then cleared for transmission by editors who presumably listened to it, and didn't think that leaving a message for an elderly gentleman about "f*cking his granddaughter" was going a little bit too far.

And Ross gets paid how much?

In reply to mypyrex:


there's no apparently about it - many people do - including those that choose which if the hundreds(?) of aspirants get the money and support to get to the top - and i think it's reasonable to say that ross is arguably the country's top comedy presenter and brand one of the top comics (by 'industry' measures whatever people's individual preferences)


again, i agree - all you need to do now is reconcile this statement with your first one

In reply to Papillon:

Thanks for that. I've signed up.

In reply to Trangia:
Me too.

In reply to wayno265: Whilst having to admit I would have resorted to violence if he had been phoning about my granddaughter. Must feel some sympathy, for the huge amount of I presume painful favours, a talentless pillock like that would have had to grant to get as far as he has.

In reply to gingerkate et al: Let me understand this. Andrew Sachs agreed to go on Russell Brand's show but in the end was unavailable or didn't turn up. Leaving aside the evident vanity in agreeing to this in the first place, what do you want from broadcasting?

Be careful what you wish for.

In reply to Dominion:

Perfect way to sum him up

In reply to Matt Vigg:

On TV, leaving a message on someones phone about sleeping with their granddaughter.

You think that's funny? It's disgusting.

Jeez. That's sad Matt.

In reply to Mike Highbury:

And the comment about his grand daughter?

Sorry no excuse whatsoever.

In reply to Trangia:

I am not excusing what was said, merely cautioning against what appears to me to be a rather silly witch hunt.

I repeat, how safe or sterile do you want your entertainment to be?

In reply to Mike Highbury:


"Entertainment"?

In reply to wayno265:


I reckon she's quite fit, "Voluptua" apparently

http://salvationgroup.com/satanic/index.php

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

'It's disgusting.'

Say it out loud and listen to the tone.

Modulate it a bit and it sounds ever more ridiculous, doesn't it?

In reply to Mike Highbury:

It wasn't just that one comment. It was a string of at least six or seven offensive remarks. Unbelievable that the BBC allowed it.

In reply to Trangia:

Instead, for Friday night TV I offer you Crufts and 'My Family'.

Happy now?

In reply to wayno265: Used to think they were both funney but this is just too much. Its only funny if everyone can see that and I doubt making such comments to a grandfather could ever be see as humerious by them.

We all make mistakes and a geniune public apology should be enough but the subsequent comments and if its true that the show was recorded and passed for broadcast defy belief.

Come on BBC someones got to make a stand somewhere.

In reply to Mike Highbury:
I don't know what it's like round your way Mike, but on my street it's very normal nowadays for teen yobs to yell abuse at my old lady neighbours, simply for fun. They think they're hilarious. It's their 'entertainment'. The BBC broadcasting what is essentially 'bullying for amusement' fuels this attitude. So yes, I know what I wish for ... human beings to treat one another with respect... and in particular for the BBC not to profiteer from bullying.

In reply to trevor simpson:

Good surfing but a bit too much for the Der Sturmer contingent of UKC

In reply to everyone who thinks this is ok...

Imagine for a moment you are a 68 year old grandfather. You listen to your answerphone and hear this..
"He f***** your granddaughter!" (laughter)..."

Not offensive at all eh?

Morons.

In reply to wayno265:

I watched Russell Brand doing his live show on C4 a few weeks ago. Thankfully I was on my own at the time as I would have been mortified to have watched him with teenagers around.

All that graphic mastabation stuff was too much even for a crude swearing sod like me. Had to switch channels !

In reply to graeme jackson:


I would expect that by offspring would be in control of their own actions

I'd be quite pleased for my granddaughter that she was able to sleep with such a handsome, intelligent, witty and undoubtedly sexually experienced man like Brand.

I would hope that she enjoyed herself at the time and will now profit from the publicity

In reply to Mike Highbury:

By trying to defend the indefensible you are now having to resort to sarcasm. Not very constructive is it?

In reply to trevor simpson: You're almost as zany as Timmy Mallett was.... and you've read Brands book too... surely the office joker with a novelty tie... aw bless.

In reply to Jonno:
I don't mind how crude he is, I don't mind how sexual his act is, he can bugger Ross live on stage for all I care ... and Mike, pretty girls dressing up in not very much and covering themselves in blood doesn't offend me in the slightest .... what's offensive is bullying and gross invasion of privacy.

In reply to Papillon:



Just because I can appreciate someones talent, it doesn't mean I want to emulate them.

This isn't true of everyone of course, I've certainly heard the "office joker with novelty tie" line before. Rocky Gervais?

In reply to gingerkate: I've written before about the unrestrained speech of the girls from the school down the road. But wasn't it ever thus? Teenagers are no more loathsome than they have always been.

I find spitting in the street utterly foul but nor was I born being able to spit cherry stones an impressive distance. That took practice.

Boundaries are pushed and delinquent behaviour reined in.

By all means criticise those two half wits; but this level of righteous indignation is entirely about us and not them. And what it tells us about ourselves is nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of the jokes themselves.

I'm rather puzzled as to why the focus has been on Andrew Sachs as a old man, it's his grand daughter... Rather than the more obvious stuff that this is about his grand daughter being a stripper: sexist and school boyish.

In reply to trevor simpson:

Nah Gervais was years after the Fast Show's Colin Hunt.

In reply to gingerkate: Sums it up quite well I think.

In reply to gingerkate:

Are not Brand and Ross just symbolic of the Americanised,celebrity obsessed junk culture which dominates our media though ?

Even the so called 'serious' newspapers and the BBC news channels are full of Madonna & Richie, Posh & Becks, Ross & Brand. Even Kerry friggin Katona for God's sake.

In reply to wayno265: Wossy is well past his sell by date on his chat show on friday night, time to wheel him out to pasture and bring the new chat show king to the table, the big dog, the one the only... Tim Westwood ;=)

In reply to johnj:

You are Joking aren't you? we wouldn't be ablet to understand a word he says.


oh hang on. I see your point

In reply to wayno265: Compare this to the way Julian Clary was pretty much outcast for saying that he'd been fisting Norman Lamont. Ross and Brand's actions are much worse.

In reply to rich:

If you find this sort of "comedy" entertaining then that says little about you. They are neither talented or amusing but seem to be nothing but foul mouthed slobs.

I should, perhaps have said that REAL comedy is a serious matter.

I could quite easily stand up and spout forth the verbal sewage that they do, however I pride myself on having a little more integrity.

In reply to Mike Highbury:
> Boundaries are pushed and delinquent behaviour reined in.

Exactly, and if one school child got hold of another school child's phone number and made abusive bullying calls, would they be paid hundreds of thousands of pounds for it, or would they get a good verbal slapdown?

In reply to johnj:

I've thought that recently, I used to enjoy his friday night show, but a couple I've seen recently have been particularly poor and even more ego driven than usual.

In reply to Jonno:

If someone had pulled a stunt like Brand and Ross have done on US TV they would have been sacked.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: Wouldn't be the first time that Brand got sacked for his humour.

In reply to mypyrex:

<hangs head>

<shakes head>

no, no that doesn't do it at all i'm afraid

you're welcome to have another go though

if it helps, what i'm objecting to isn't people being genuinely upset by what they did (i'm not personally but, as you might say, that's my problem) - i'm objecting to the lazy leap from "i don't like them" to "they're not talented'" in the face of the evidence to the contrary

although even 'objecting' is probably too strong a word - on second thoughts you carry on

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect

In reply to rich:

By which you mean his popularity? But there again, the man who found a dying disabled woman and sprayed shaving foam on her, then urinated on her, was surrounded by an amused crowd. His expressed purpose was to have his video on youtube, to reach a larger audience. And then there's child pornography ... it's apparent that many, many people find that entertaining. Or the roman empire with slaughter as spectator sport. Anyone for a spot of crucifixion? Real crowd drawer, that. Or if you like to believe the human race has progressed since those days, there's the recent incident of the young suicidal man being urged to jump by onlookers.

So no, I'll pass on sharing your lazy equation of popularity with talent. Human beings are extraordinary mixed creatures. Each of us I mean... we're every one of us a mix of the foul and the glorious. You can fan the foul, puff it up, elevate and celebrate it ... it's always going to be popular, doesn't mean it's good for us, doesn't mean it's a worthy endeavour, and doesn't mean you should be paid lots of money.

Over and out, got work to do, sorry for abrupt exit.

In reply to gingerkate:

that's an impressive jump in logic!


so why *are* Brand and Ross so firmly lodged in the public eye, if we all think they're so talentless/terrible?


nice.

fwiw, in my opinion it was a rubbish thing to do. Brand comes across as like a puppy in need of reining in - no more, no less.

In reply to Mike Highbury:
Surely the point about this case is that the boundaries are not being reined in ? What has happened is that rather than the "establishment" media setting standards against which alternative performers and the mass of teenagers can rebel they have embraced the standards of lowest common denominator and regularised them. Rather like a parent being surprised when ,having set no boundaries for its teenage offspring, the offspring explore ever more extreme ways of finding boundaries to challenge the media and ourselves now express surprise at Ross/Brand's crass behaviour and of the yob behaviour of our young.

Ross's talent is simply to embrace the lower levels of popular culture. He's basically the funny bloke we'd like to share the fifth pint with-which is what we do on returning home from the pub on Friday night.
I don't really see why we should all pay a tax for the privilege.

In reply to gingerkate:

well, yes - their (and let's remember who it was who said the most objectionable bit) job is to be popular as evidenced by thousands of not millions of people tuning in, turning up, reading the book - so popularity is a pretty good measure in their case i reckon - i'll grant you it's less important for a lab technician, say

<example equated to a prank phonecall removed>


i'd sort of happily spend my life deconstructing what makes these two succesful in their careers compared to all of the unnsuccesful or less succesful but it'd be quite an undertaking i think - for the purposes of this discussion i'm happy with what i said up there just now

that's kinda my point - i find it strange that you seem to be in the 'evil and worthless to the core' camp

again, i agree

in what sense has this episode been 'popular' though? what's your measure? all i've heard is criticism ranging from the mild and technical to the hyperbolic

ah - perhaps some sort of committee should be established to moderate the earning power of people if a part of their behavior is considered unacceptable by some other people . . .

no worries

In reply to Dominion:

I agree wholeheartdly - never found him anything more than annoying and this latest stunt just goes to show he really is not what he seems to think he is.

Mr Ross, well he should bloody know better and should be ashamed (I have a feeling he probably is)

In reply to mypyrex:


Making arguments against what they did is fair enough but to describe Brand as semi-literate and inarticulate just shows that you either have never heard him or are letting your moral outrage cloud your judgement. If you cannot make your point objectively then you have no valid point to make.

I think Russell Brand is hilarious, I download the podcast every week and it makes me laugh consistently for an hour, however, I'm not sure this can be defended, not bcause it was rude or risque but simply because it was bullying of an old bloke. What was said was designed to cause him upset and for no reason. It looks rather like Ross trying to prove he has still 'got it' in front of his new rivial; "I'm more outrageous than you" kind of thing.

In reply to Jonno:


Writes disgusted of Tunbridge Wells (92)

Keep the revolutionary spirit going Jonno!

In reply to Removed User:

They work for the BBC. I saw Ross interview Robert Downy Juinior, it was poor. Ross and Brand are both one trick pony presenters IMO, the trick being 'wackyness' or 'outragousness'. I appreciate some people do like it, but from general chat with friends, colleagues, on here ect, it's clear they both get a mixed reaction.

In reply to gingerkate:


Are these things really popular though? Where is it you live again?


Its all very well to pass on it but you must offer an alternative, he wins awards, he's lauded by critics, his peers think he's funny, I don't know how you would measure it but I think its pretty much irrefutable that he is a talented comedian even if he's not to your taste. Oh, I think I get it now a talented comedian is anyone who you find funny, an untalented one is someone that you don't. Prehaps if we defer to you for all judgemtns in future life would be a lot simpler, f&^k choice and consensus.

In reply to Papillon:


Is that a bad thing?

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Wot he said. Harassing an old bloke in that way isn't what I'd call comedy by any means... Just plain rude, low and unimaginative.

Well, a lot of complaints have been sent in and the BBC have apologised already:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/3272149/Russell-Br...

This is what your licence tax pays for folks. I watched a really first-class documentary about Ike Eisenhower's part in the D-Day landings at the weekend. That was on supposedly commercial, low-brow channel five while the BBC, who are publically funded so they can prodcue content a commercial broadcaster couldn't, showed celebrities in spandex jumping in swimming pool and this shit.

In reply to Removed User:

No Clare you are WRONG WRONG WRONG. He would have got thumped if he had said it to a persons face, or got arrested. Just because he hides behind a microphone spouting to sycophantic young people who have not looked up the word decency does not make it right. If someone had said that about my grand-daughter they would certainly know they had done wrong.

GK has it right, but then she has children and knows what it is like for them to be bullied.

Oh, and they should both be sacked, along with the BBC person who allowed it to go out.

In reply to Tyler:

Not necessarily, but wrt to Ross and Brand I think the beeb has pushed their profile to an an artificial high, which the beeb can only do as it is a publicly funded orginisation.

In reply to trevor simpson:

Oh my word... is that true? Well do give me a shout when you've a granddaughter - I'll be right round...

of course I suspect it may take a few years.

In reply to Amster-dan:


If she was a responsible adult and the type of person who would want that sort of thing, then I'd be pleased for her.

You can't force feed them Wherthers Originals all their lives

In reply to Tyler:


I agree.
Russell Brand is an easy target but it was Johnathan Ross who yelled out the message over Russell. It wasn't necessary. Most of Russell Brand's humour on his show is self-mocking and all the better for it. Russell Brand may have been talking about it on the radio but Johnatan Ross 'insulted' Andrew Sachs.

It should be remembered however that some of the best comedy is cruel. Taking you to the edge of what is acceptable, questioning your own good taste and maybe leaving you feeling slightly uncomfortable. Borat? Cleese torturing Sach's himself in Fawlty Towers? Pythons being crucified?

Wrong? YES Insulting? YES Funny? It was a bit, yeah

In reply to sutty:

Sutty you are AGGRESSIVE AGGRESSIVE AGGRESSIVE in using this tone.


steady on, Sutty.


oh ffs, this isn't a dig at GK but about the notion that it's totally f*cking dumb to believe that only by having children can you understand that bullying is wrong. Good lord.

fair enough - so why hasn't Brand been fired before now then? he's been given an ever-increasing length of rope, he's done some outrageous things, why hasn't anyone set his boundaries before now?

I'm sure the Daily Maul website has a forum you can vent some spleen on.

In reply to trevor simpson:

I think if you actualy *had* a grand daughter (and I pray for her sake you don't yet!) you will clearly find it fine for her to sleep with anyone she chooses to and I think you should only be looking for 2 qualities.

- she likes them!
- treats her well !

I don't think you'd realy care if he (or she) was:

-handsome
-intelligent
-witty
-sexually experienced

Brand may be handsome(??) intellegent(??), witty(??) and a sexual god (snigger) but... he's still a c**t isn't he !

In reply to daveyw:


Thing is I find all those perfectly acceptable I just personally this particular joke is not. I've lost a lot respect for Brand over this incident, he's not responsible for what JR said but he could have been a more sincere in his apology.

In reply to wayno265:

Ofcom are now involved

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20081028/tuk-ofcom-to-probe-ross-and-brand-call...

In reply to Tyler:
I agree that in many ways the furore is really about the way they reacted afterwards. Each other not wanting to back down and accept responsiblity for the mistake as if they did their careers, as they are, would be over.

My guess is Andrew Sach's was lisening to the show when they were talking about his grand-daughter, thought it was disrespectful and so didn't answer his phone. The producer should have realised there was a problem then.

The producer should also then have taken control over how they dealt with 'stepping over the line'

In reply to Trangia:


As they should be - if anyone here made abusive phone calls to pensioners, would it just be a bit of a laugh?

I'm not sure why it should be okay just because it's done on TV.

In reply to Amster-dan:

If your grandson was an erotic performer in a mediocre, kinky boy-band and he shagged Sarah Silverman, wouldn't you be pleased for him?

In reply to trevor simpson:

I certainly wouldn't. She seems like a total pain in the arse and I reckon that she could etch glass with her voice.

In reply to Clauso:

ok , Jo Brand?

In reply to daveyw:


The show was prerecorded so there was ample time to prevent it being broadcast. My gripe isn't that this went out just that two intelligent men were personally abusive towards an entirely innocent bloke I'd feel the same way regardless of whether or not it was on a radio program.

In reply to niggle:


Oy Niggle, stop saying stuff I agree with.

I feel a bit funny now.

In reply to trevor simpson:

Now you're talking!... I'm a feeder and I reckon that she'd be just the girl for me.

In reply to wayno265: wankers

I don't get it? Why is what two blokes on a radio show said so important?
It seems that most people who have complained didn't even listen to the show, rather they have taken time to listen to just the contentious part and wound themselves up (picture them sat, holding knees and rocking back and forth while proclaiming their disgust as they listen to the rest of the show in case something else offends them).
I could spend the rest of my life looking into things that distress me but I choose to be a bit more positive than that.

In reply to Stu Jones:

Clearly.

In reply to trevor simpson:

I'm not sure whether you are doing a great job of winding people up on this thread or are just the lowest of the lowlife by being 'pleased' for your hypothetical grand daughter to go out sh*gging as many people as possible (or sh*gging people who've sh*gged as many people as possible)...

If Brand was female the common perception would be of someone cheap, easy, probably diseased and definitely best avoided. Undoubtedly sexually experienced though!

In reply to chris_j_s:

Do you think women should be allowed to have recreational sex?

In reply to trevor simpson:

Who is Sarah Silverman

In reply to trevor simpson:

I honestly would not be any more happy for him than if it was a librarian who played the jews harp and had only held hands.

It's like somehow an individual as Brand is a more worthwhile shag cos he's famous ! He's still a second class knob! - IMO of course.

In reply to Stu Jones:


The amount of license-payers' money that goes to Jonathan Ross, that distresses me a wee bit when I stop to think of it. As for Russell Brand, I can honestly say I've never heard any of his material before, but on the basis of this wee bit, I don't think I'm missing much.

In reply to Amster-dan:


In term of her career he probably is.

But plenty of women just find him really attractive, funny, witty etc. as a person

In reply to trevor simpson:

They can do what they like but its a fact that

a) people will form an unfavourable opinion of them i.e. they 'get themselves a reputation' and
b)they are much more likely to get diseases. Ewww.

For me at least, the phrase "you always want what you can't have" definitely has a lot of truth. I think a person (female from my perspective but could equally apply to a male) who is a bit more selective and doesn't 'get around' as much is infinitely more desireable and I would also have far more respect for them.

In reply to chris_j_s:

I personally agree with that, but if people are happy being promiscuous, I'm happy for them.

In reply to trevor simpson: i would.. (if i was bi, of course)

Dominion's just jealous cos Russel has been vegetarian longer than him

In reply to chris_j_s:

When you say people - do you just mean you?

I don't think less of people (or more of people) based on how many times they have had sex and with whom.

It would seem a strange thing to do

In reply to wayno265:

too much bravado and a lack of respect for societies morals

In reply to trevor simpson:

Thats fair enough I suppose, I have to bow to your superior laissez faire-yness!

Like I say, in general people are welcome to do what they want but I'd be less than happy if it was my grand daughter (hypothetically, I don't have one!). Or, more to the point, if somebody phoned me and gloated about having sex with my grand daughter. There are just some things your family don't need to hear really.

Apols for my slightly over the top lowlife comment by the way.

In reply to es:
>

Indeed, I don't know you at all but i think you're great mainly because you use two letters for your name, I'd like to use one just J, but it appears that the forums aren't quite so verbose as to have one letter profile names just yet, so i'll have to stick with what i've got...<ramble ramble ramble>

In reply to es:

Not at all. I think you're just being awkward. This is quite a common opinion to form of someone who gets around a lot (and makes it well known, some people are much better at being discreet than others).

In reply to wayno265: There seems to be some confusion about morals and entertainment and what grandparents should think about their grandchildren's sex lives in this thread. The fact is, Ross made an obscene phonecall and was recorded doing it on a radio programme. He should be arrested and charged. brand should also be charged as an accessory.

In reply to Tyler:
sorry for delay in reply.
I'm glad you qualified that.

In reply to Removed User:

I am not being aggressive, such emphasising the fact you are wrong, were wrong, and still are wrong.

>oh ffs, this isn't a dig at GK but about the notion that it's totally f*cking dumb to believe that only by having children can you understand that bullying is wrong. Good lord.

I think it is you that is the dumb one, GK has more brains than the two of us put together, can think logically, unlike you about these things and add empathy.

You don't do empathy do you?

In reply to graeme jackson:

That's actually a very good point.

In reply to sutty:
>

There there

Time for you afternoon nap is it Mr grumpy ;=)

In reply to Tall Clare:

I'm still chuckling at "Daily Maul" - was that intentional?

In reply to sutty:

all that aggression, just because I described Brand as a puppy dog in need of reining in - you didn't answer my question about why he hasn't been reprimanded before now for a lot of other material that's stepped waaaay over the line.

Continue in such an unpleasant way and I'll start to wonder how much you do understand about bullying.

In reply to DougG:

yes it was. It's true - it's apt, I reckon!

In reply to wayno265: Sounds to me like two immature blokes acting like naughty schoolboys, the older one egging the younger one on. Might have been funny as a comedy sketch had Andrew Sachs been 'in' on the 'joke' and walked in to the studio as they were up to their answerphone mischief, but, otherwise, it's pretty sick.

Ross is quite witty and energetic - and can be thoughtful e.g. his film review programme - but far too often he irritates me because he's so in love with his own ego that he doesn't let his guests speak or gets involved in a competition with his celebrity 'mates'.

Brand, again, is intelligent and writes a thoughtful review of football in the Weekend Guardian, but all too often dives for the lowest common denominator in search of laughs.

In reply to Removed User:

Aye, very apt!

In reply to sutty: FFS shut the feck up, now get me banned like you did with MT- i'd have much prefered to hear what he would have had to say right now than the blinkered bigoted views expressed on this thread

Russell for president- bring on the revolution!

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Like I said I don't think they should be taken too seriously, but I admit, for Andrew Sachs that part of the message was probably pretty offensive. We're probably all guilty of laughing at other people's misfortune at times and I'm being honest by saying I laughed at this. Not specifically (or at all) at the granddaughter bit, the whole section of the show, maybe I've got a sick sense of humour I don't know.

Should they apologise? Yes, should they be sacked? Personally I don't think so.

In reply to Matt Vigg:

PS, it was on the radio, have you listened to the actual broadcast?

In reply to Removed User:

Sorry Clare, you just wind me up with your pathetic posturing. As to bullying, that is what you are trying to do to me, leave it be.

In reply to sutty:

what on earth...?

In reply to sutty:

"Sorry about the last insult; here's another"

Classic.

In reply to Removed User:

Yeah, and I'm fekkin furious with you too. I've just kicked a small child in sheer frustration...

I hope that you're suitably proud of yourself?

In reply to sutty:

remind me again which one is you?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6Jf55VDSi-E&feature=related

In reply to sutty:

Thats a hell of a leap sutty.

No one is bullying anybody, just having a debate.

Shock Horror! People have differing opinions on UKC, and are prepared to express them!

In reply to sutty: This one's a bit of a leap too, to be honest:


I very much doubt it.

Clare's said they need reining in but is providing a bit of much needed perspective too. I think perhaps it's time for this thread to go the way of the woolly mammoth.

In reply to wayno265: 1700 people complained who had actually listened to the show. The other 18000+ complained after being outraged after the fact.

It seems whatever turned the public into a rabid mob over the OMM has caught on.

In reply to Alyson:


Yes as I've all ready posted on here, the world changes, maybe time for Wossy and the bbc dinosaurs get their p45, they've had their fat cat salaries for long enough as it is, Wossy could easily be replaced on his tired out chat show by the big dawg, Tim Westwood ;^)

In reply to Fawksey:

The braodcast has been repeated online, and the transcript is available online.

What's wrong with people complaining on the basis of seeing/reading it afterwards?

In reply to Papillon:

I'll bet that Ross is secretly loving all this hullabaloo. He's a self-confessed punk fan; he probably thinks of it as his Sex Pistols vs Bill Grundy moment.

Congratulations Jonathan, you've upset a pensioner. Next...

In reply to johnj:

'wossy' needs to be put in a concentration camp with j.oliver and all other fat tongued b@stard, annoying, presenters

In reply to Fawksey:

Maybe that's the sad total of disciples these two prats had left to listen to their program?

In reply to neilinut: Thats a great idea, all the celebrities could be put on celebrity Island paradise but never let off and the BBC could screen it 24/7 as it slowly turned into lord of the flies!

In reply to Clauso:

ROLFMAO!!

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=4vaFf-6WQeU&feature=related < dont really know what to make of it, well, it makes laugh (for some reason)

In reply to Alyson:

typical humanoid behaviour- i guess you're in favour of banning Russell..

In reply to Papillon: Yes, but you can bet most of the people who've read the transcript and/or listened online have done so since hearing about it, just so they can get themselves properly offended. "He said what? Well I must hear that for myself so I can become truly enraged."

Some people love nothing more than the dizzying joy of sitting at their pcs and getting their knickers in a knot.

In reply to johnj:

great idea if you sent Brand as well....a callous part of me just thought of the los storyline where the hobbit musician fella found the stash of smack......

In reply to Alyson:


can you do that whilst still wearing them? that's quite a cool trick, maybe we could run away together to join the circus.. lol

In reply to neilinut: Yeah they all get to go, the lot of em, in fact we wouldn't even have to convince them, they'd be applying for a place

In reply to Alyson:

Sorry I think you're painting a fanciful picture there. I listened to it just out of curiosity.... and thought it was unpleasant.

In reply to Anonymous:

Actually I feel remarkably unstirred by the whole thing.

In reply to wayno265: Well I think that on the balance of the replies, it's fair to conclude that they went well beyond the boundaries of what most people would deem acceptable.

That concurs with my original thoughts on the subject and nothing I've heard or read since has changed my view.

I don't agree that they're both talentless. I personally think that they're both articulate and quick-witted, albeit in a slightly immature and laddish way. They don't need, therefore, to resort to such means to get a laugh or entertain. I've not paid to mush attention to RB, but I've been quite a fan of Ross in the past. Recently though I've found him tiresome and slightly bullying and I've stopped watching his chat show and listening to his Radio 2 show. From what I gather, I'm not alone in getting fed-up with his ego - it's been reflected in some of the previous posts.

In reply to Alyson: I'll add, I do feel entitled to an opinion on something which costs me 140 quid a year.

In reply to Alyson:

I don't think you're right about that. I heard it on the radio, and I didn't need to "get my knickers in a knot", it just pissed me off. I then read a transcript to make sure I didn't rush to the wrong conclusion based on selective editing.

I can assure you that I'm about as far from Mary Whitehouse as it's possible to get!

In reply to Alyson: Russell is a true gent- bet he could talk you into bed..
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=lWIe-yHMcFQ

In reply to Papillon:

I agree, and from which Brand and Ross get a reasonable percentage

In reply to Papillon: Is that what this is really about? You dont like paying the licence fee?

In reply to Fawksey: No.

In reply to wayno265: On a related note, I'm beginning to wonder what's happening to the world I'm inhabiting. I've both liked a Girls Aloud song and agreed with an article on the front page of the Daily Mail in the same week! WTF is going on?

In reply to Papillon: Some folk however much it gets explained to them, just don't get it.

In reply to Papillon: why did you bring it up then?

In reply to Fawksey: Sutty is not paying his license fee till they are both banned..

In reply to Anonymous: A good enough reason as any, they keep their jobs we don't pay their fee!

In reply to Anonymous: Id rather be outraged that 2000 dogs a day get destroyed.

In reply to Fawksey: I ain't spoon feeding you basic concepts... especially as you haven't attempted to answer my original question.

In reply to Papillon: where did you ask me a question?

In reply to Papillon: ah found it

In reply to Fawksey:

You don't need to choose.

In reply to Papillon: I thought it a bit Mary Whitehouse, staying up to the wee hours watching filthy naked bodies writhing about and then being shocked.

Then trying to impose her standards on me.

I would accept that Brand & Ross might owe Andrew Sachs an apology but they dont owe me one or in my opinion anyone else.

In reply to wayno265: Im not offended by Ross and Brand, wasnt my grandaughter they were on about

In reply to Fawksey: i'd rather be enraged by the animal lovers who are contributing to this slaughter- not to mention all the cute animals they consume with relish..

In reply to Anonymous: do they have to be cute? What about ugly animals?

In reply to Fawksey: Do you get offended by a dog being slaughtered when it's not your dog?

In reply to wayno265: Im offended by the waste. I find it more offensive thana prank. I could have said something else, I could have said Im more offended by infant mortality in developing countries. I think if the media and people put as much effort into registering their disgust at infant mortality that they have done over this then something fantastic might be achieved

In reply to Fawksey: i've yet to see an ugly animal, apart from us..

In reply to Anonymous: "cute"? its a horribly childish word to use to describe every species on the planet.

In reply to Fawksey:

'Horribly childish' a twisted up anomaly of a quote on every single level of comprehension, kids are cool it's the grown ups who do the horrible stuff so the poor little mites never get a chance!

In reply to wayno265:
Good point.

In reply to wayno265: It shouldn't be the lead story on the news. That's more offensive than the phone call itself, especially with 10% of British homes threatened with negative equity being called a poor second to two tw*ts larking around on a radio show.

In reply to wayno265: Sack them both and with no pay off ross is a waste of space and not worth 18p never mind 18 million

In reply to sarah79: I agree with both yours and Fawksey's issues of perspective, although I've got more interest in infant mortality than negative equity. However, I'm not sure the fact that there are worse things happening in the world is a reason to ignore issues of less objective importance.

In reply to neil0968: Having enjoyed the initial broadcast I was amazed to read and hear the reporting, storm in a D cup.

Ross and Brand are good value for money compared to the crap thats pushed out on the rest of the BBC.

In reply to wayno265:

I'm not saying ignore it. Just put it in its proper place, you know, in the news spot right at the end normally reserved for comedy stories involving animals...

In reply to Anonymous: That's a comment that needs some justifying!

In reply to sarah79: I've noticed that the BBC do tend to prioritise issues that affect them in their reporting of the news.

In reply to wayno265:

Well, they've guaranteed that viewing/listening figures for Brand and Ross's shows will go through the roof, I guess....

In reply to sarah79: Sadly, I think you may be right.

In reply to sarah79: Hello, but when the main news story over the weekend was about some runners who'd gone out when it was a little windy, some days it seems to be seen that the televised news is what it sort of is really is; a soap opera!

In reply to wayno265: Do you watch what's on BBC TV?

Spooks, Eastenders, the one show wow, what a smorgasboard of entertainment.

There's no footy, the cricket has gone, when was the last time there was a decent prime time family sit com on BBC1?

For the millions the BBC spend on broadcasting to minority groups (eg Radio 3) and on management consultants Brand and Ross and good value. Ross's Saturday show is a real gem.

In reply to wayno265:

They're damned if they do and damned if they don't, really. Either they stick the boot into other parts of the organisation and get accused of navel-gazing, or they ignore it and get accused of a cover-up.

A lot of the current heat appears to be orchestrated by News International, sister company of Sky. Now why might they want to hype everything up, hmm?

In reply to psd: Yes and how Sky news reports on sports events its broadcasting and doesnt report on sports events it isnt broadcasting. How Sky News reports on showbusiness and film stars as part of its news service and then shows those films.

The BBC is still better than all the other channels put together in my opinion.

In reply to wayno265:

I thought it was a pretty obnoxious episode rather like a couple of pissed up teenagers phoning someone's parents from a party or something. Doesn't look too cute when it's done by older guys on the radio. Having said that, I was pretty glad to see Channel 4 lead with the story about the Congo tonight. At least they've got some sense of real world priority.

I kind of wonder how many people just hate Russell Brand, and are just using this as a platform, though. He doesn't do anything at all for me, I must say, but it is starting to look like both of them are being judged for a bit more than what they did on that show by quite a lot of people.

In reply to wayno265: Saw a picture in the paper today of Andrew Sachs grandaughter and ohh yes I would !!!!

In reply to Allan McDonald: However they are both out of order and I'd sack them !

In reply to Allan McDonald:

I know what you mean. I'd like to think that in the extremely unlikely event that she'd let me, I wouldn't taunt her granddad about it

In reply to Removed User:

Careful - you might inject some rationality into the thread...

What I can't understand is all the manufactured hoo-ha about this. Can people not just think for themselves for once? Why, if it's so offensive, have most newspapers felt obliged to publish transcripts? Given that the radio show in question attracts a couple of million listeners at best, how many outraged people have immediately tracked down audio clips so that they didn't miss out on the chance to be offended?

Most of all, why the hell are Brown and Cameron involved in a pissing match to show who can be most offended and outraged by it? It's just bizarre.

In reply to wayno265: I also think people are well over-reacting!! its just some fun!! John Cleese must be of the same age and he would probably find that hilarious!?!? my brother however thinks its well abd that they did it to an old man!

In reply to Steve Parker:

Every time I agree with you I feel dirty.

Please go back to winding the hell out of me so that the natural order of the universe is restored. Please?

In reply to psd:

I suspect it might be something to do with the fact that it's a handy small (in the grand scheme of things) story to distract us from larger concerns (e.g. the state of the economy, the news about repossessions, etc). We can get our teeth into it, and we can have an opinion, and we can email our complaints and feel less powerless than we do about some of the more pressing concerns facing us.

That is, obviously, just conjecture.

In reply to wayno265: What is interesting about tis is that it was a pre-recorded programme where a producer apparently had oversight of what had been recorded before it went out. The BBC's own producer guidelines should have indicated quite clearly that this was inappropriare material for broadcast.
That's me pompous bit - but even on a live programme you shouldn't phone someone up and try to get them on without a prior arrangement. Pair of arses... The producer will probably get sacked/disciplined but not so surte about Wossy and Brand... it's a bit like Joey Barton in that respect.

In reply to Removed User: Though - rather than being a distraction - people may see a connection between Ross Brand's antics and the state of the economy etc - i.e. feeling they the ordinary folk are struggling to pay bills whilst two immature offensive millionaires are making a fortune by abusing an inoffensive pleasant seventy-something?

In reply to Removed User:
I doubt that's all of it (suspect/tend to agree it's some of it, though), but there sure is something else going on here, isn't there. No way all of the extremity above can be explained by this one incident, I don't think. Seems like a lot of anger and irrationality coming out, and this story doesn't seem quite big enough to justify it all.

In reply to Steve Parker: does this mean Westwood gets the gig? Where do i have to sign?

All we need now is that other one-trick-pony, Clarkson, to get his comeuppance.

In reply to Steve Parker:

I'm kinda with you Steve, but I'm also more strongly swayed by the "Why the f@ck have they done that anyway?" side of my nature... I'd like to think that - despite the 'owl thang' - I'm not entirely irrational.

To me, it just comes down to common decency. RossBrand behaved extremely shabbily... Just where does society draw the line on 'having a laugh'? Why should Sachs be subject to having to listen to and have that crap broadcast by the BBC!?!?!... Rossbrand are in the public eye and, like it or not, they exert influence and they therefore also have responsibilities.

They've behaved far less than decently. I can't see any reasonable defence for how they've carried on and it really makes me despair of any 'society' that seeks to condone their behaviour.... And, no, I don't read the Daily Mail.

In reply to wayno265:

I think Brand is a c@+t and any excuse to f*ck him up and i'm in

as for Ross- call that an interview with Daniel Craig last show? Was it bollox...alll he did was play gags and attempt to take the rise...

bring back Parky for whatever untold cost and burn both of the morose idiots

In reply to Vip1r:

i think that pithily sums up Tall Clare's comment earlier

well done

In reply to Clauso:

Don't disagree at all, but millions of people are fleeing for their lives in the Congo, and yet this still seems to be the biggest story on most news channels, and the one that has got the most complaints of any story in recent history, as far as I can tell. Gotta figure there's some heavy level of projection going on for that to be happening.

In reply to Vip1r:


Did anyone else see the excellent Autumn watch on BBC2 yesterday evening good to see some elements of the Aunty Beeb are still are capable of producing quality television!

In reply to Steve Parker:

Course there is, the beeb is a publicly funded body who isn't directely accountable to the public. There's people who support the beeb in general but would like their opinion noted, and there are strong critics of the beeb who will use this to further their aims.

I think it's an interesting point, should the beeb become a haven for artists/celebrities, who can't hold down a job at commercial broadcasters?

In reply to Removed User:

So there'll be no more 'pondering' threads from you then? All future discussion must be concentrated on the economy heh?

In reply to Papillon:

I don't just mean that, though. I was also thinking of all the people claiming they are talentless idiots because they did something stupid. People only jump to extremes when they've already got an axe to grind, usually. I pretty much hate everything that comes out of these guys' mouths, but I'm not going to be so daft as to say they have no talent.

Interesting that the comments received by Radio 1 were 2 to 1 'supportive' (wrong word, more like dismissive and playing it down). Demographic division there, clearly.

In reply to Steve Parker: Ok course they have talent, they'd have excellent leadership qualities for working as a shop floor manager at their local sewerage works!

In reply to Steve Parker:

I'm fed up with it - and agree wholeheartedly that there are far more serious events in the world that should be covered by our news. As usual its our celebrity obessessed culture that leads the bulletins - personally I've started watching Al Jazeera and France 24 for a more balanced world news view.

In reply to 'Hilda':

What news channel has made you fed up?

In reply to Vip1r:


That is the most ridiculous comment anyone's ever made on the internet, anywhere, ever.

In reply to 'Hilda':
- personally I've started watching Al Jazeera

Me too. I find it very balanced and very well presented. It's quite interesting to compare it with the same stories from "Western" News like Sky, BBC and ITV. I haven't checked it out to see if it's picked up on the Band/Ross fiasco?

In reply to Steve Parker:

Yep, you've hit the nail firmly on the head there; the answer is obviously to send RossBrand to the Congo... At their own expense.

In reply to Clauso:


Would they even have to buy their own um-bongo?

In reply to trevor simpson: WHAT? And have to drink it in the jungle?

In reply to trevor simpson:

They'd probably get sponsored by Um-Bongo... Especially if they drank it in the Congo?

Just imagine the news coverage for the Congo if RossBrand were parachuted in to it!!!...

It'd be the biggest thing to happen to the country since... since... errrrrmmm... since it featured in an advert' for a daft drink?

In reply to Papillon:

eh? how did you get to that conclusion from my comment?

In reply to rich:

um... I've not recommended anything of the sort!

:-S

In reply to Steve Parker: 'Gotta figure there's some heavy level of projection going on for that to be happening.' They have exposed the world we have created, of lad's mags, exploitation of women, STDs and mental cruelty; we don't like what we see, but can't do much about it.

In reply to Removed User: apologies - it was Steve Parker


er, i have a cold - i should clearly be more careful and less elliptical when i have a cold . . .

In reply to rich: and i'm not saying Steve was recommending anything - just that vipers post seemed to back Steve's up

In reply to rich:

hee hee, no worries - just thought I'd clarify, after the commotion further up...

In reply to Removed User: I took your comments ( wrongly or rightlY?)as a suggestion that people should be more concernerd with more serious issues, rather than this 'distraction'. So I was making the point that that argument could be applied anywhere, to dismiss any discussion.

In reply to Steve Parker:

I realise that what's happening in the Congo is more important.

However. Can you give me a good reason why these 2 shouldn't be sacked? If I phoned my next door neighbour and left a message on his answering machine along the lines of the one left by Brand and Ross, I'd be expecting a knock on the door by the polis. Why on earth should they be treated any differently?

In reply to Papillon:

oh no, that wasn't how I meant it - it was more an observation that stories like this seem to emerge as a focus for discussion/energy when we feel powerless about bigger issues.

I wasn't intending to dismiss anything! It's pretty evident that I'm as interested in the ephemera of life as the next person!


aaaaaargh!

In reply to DougG:

just thinking out loud here you understand

they pre-record something
it gets approved(?) for broadcast by the corporation
there's a bad reaction
the corporation sacks them

unfair dismissal?

In reply to rich:

Hmmm, if I did something at work that amounted to gross misconduct, and my boss approved it, I'd expect us both to lose our jobs.

In reply to DougG: possibly - i'm not even sure what the employment relationship / contract is in this situation

In reply to 'Hilda':

"I'm fed up with it - and agree wholeheartedly that there are far more serious events in the world that should be covered by our news. As usual its our celebrity obessessed culture that leads the bulletins - personally I've started watching Al Jazeera and France 24 for a more balanced world news view. "

I agree.

The coverage on this is getting way out of hand. Yes, Brand and Wossi f*cked up but looking at the media storm this is generating you could be forgiven for believing the unfunny double act have just been caught selling weapons grade plutonium to Iran. Jesus, the breakfast news even had that guardian of good taste Kelvin f*cking McKensie on the sofa to give his views.

In reply to wayno265:

I think Andrew Sachs has behaved with remarkable restraint over this.

I was raised in an environment where you did not say such things about a man's family. You did not say such things about a woman. You certainly did not say such things in public.

It is tantamount to demanding a fight.

Saying such things from the safety of a broadcasting studio where the insulted party has no means of reply, saying such things from behind millions of pounds which can buy lawyers and security guards - it is bullying.

I notice that they make such jokes about the family of an elderly actor. They do not make similar jokes in public about anybody who might have the power to hurt them in return.

In reply to Cú Chullain:

Euronews daily & Eorpa weekly is the way ahead. I think they'll be offski by the end of play today though!

In reply to Cú Chullain:

What channel was that?

In reply to Papillon:

BBC Breakfast

In reply to Bill Davidson: I thought as much. I reckon a commercial broadcaster would have sacked them then moved on. The BBC doesn't sack them but dewells on the story!

In reply to wayno265:

Manuels grand daughter is some kind of wannabe model / pop star. this whole episode smacks of a PR stunt gone wrong. I bet some worm like Max clifford is behind all of this. I hope Brand and Ross dont get sacked as they are just doing what they do and what they are paid for. if anything some editor at the beeb should get sacked for this.

In reply to wayno265:

I think this issue is important because it says that rich celebrities with a microphone can bully and mock people who are less powerful than they.

Do we desire a society where the powerless can be ridiculed at will by the powerful for their own amusement? I don't.

I have been the victim of workplace bullying, where the company director thought it OK to publicly assault me for fun, and in fear of my job I took it. I regret not standing up for myself more.

I have seen the effects of persistant mockery of an individual at school by a clique of powerful pupils. Its not good.

I think the Manics' song applies: if you tolerate this, your children will be next.
Either as victim, or victimiser, or both.

In reply to doz generale:
> (In reply to wayno265)

They get paid for making nuisance calls to pensioners!

You should contact Scotland yard.. they're getting paid for commiting criminal offences!

In reply to Papillon:

the show was pre-recorded. For every pre-recorded broadcast an editor and a senior editor have to sign a release. This means that a whole chain of editorial staff at the BBC failed to think this was bad enough to cut out. Also manuel asked for this not to be broadcast. Idiots like Brand and Ross will allways push the bounderies of taste, decency ect. It's the BBCs editorial process that failed here (spectacularly). Sacking the Talent will just provide a Vacuum for some other idiots to do the same.

I still think that this is a PR job insigated by someone trying to promote Manuels grand daughters career.

18,000 complaints! Another outburst of national hysteria. We'll have people queuing up to sign books of condemnation soon.

In reply to almost sane:

Saudi Arabia?

In reply to Cú Chullain:

it would be good to see an unconnected member of the public crying about it on TV.

In reply to Cú Chullain:

There's obviously a lot of hype and band wagon jumping on happening here but I still suspect its tapped into a widely held resentment that entertainers like Ross,for all his wit, drag down the acceptable standards of behaviour in society and many people resent paying a tax and him lots of money to do this.

Anyway,it'll all blow over in a week or so and the BBC can go back to mocking anyone who thinks that there are any standards of behaviour that should be protected.

In reply to trevor simpson:

"it would be good to see an unconnected member of the public crying about it on TV."

Give it 6 months and I am sure you will be able to buy a limited edition commemorative plate from the back of a tabloid Sunday magazine for only 28 monthly instalments of £99.99

In reply to Postmanpat:


I'm not sure that it will, now that they have been suspended (just announced).

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

strange - the BBC report doesn't mention whether the producers who sanctioned the broadcast are to be suspended too.

In reply to Removed User:

No, there's no mention of that. It would certainly be wrong for Ross and Brand to carry the can alone.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth: bbc website

Meanwhile, Andrew Sachs tells the BBC the show's producer called him on the day of recording to ask if he could use the sequence in question.

He continued: "The signal was poor and I couldn't really hear what was being played down the line to me.

"But I asked whether they would consider allowing me to come in the following week and then the recorded segment would not have to be included."

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Right this has been on BBC news 24 for 24 minutes and counting whilst this story which got all of 3 minutes has totally disappeared
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7696197.stm I know which story is a waste of my licence fee.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


It would be rather good if, instead of Jonathon Ross's usual Friday night drivel, the BBC were to broadcast the test card for the duration, along with that single note that used to signal that there was no more TV to watch.

In other news, a woman was recently stoned to death in Somalia. If I'm going to get annoyed about anything, I'd rather get annoyed about that than the antics of two blokes who should know better. But in the long term it'll make not a jot of difference whether I take umbrage, flight or not a blind bit of notice or either...

T.

In reply to superfurrymonkey:

Well, the ecocrunch story has been on the BBC News website since early this morning (when I read it with interest). I don't regard the two stories as totally unrelated, as they are both the result of trends in our western culture. We could perhaps talk of a values-crunch, too.

In reply to DougG:

Not saying they shouldn't. Just marvelling a bit at the scale of it, and how some people seem to have lost all sense of proportion about it. Another feeding frenzy. Be interesting to see if it reaches some sort of critical mass where the Beeb just can't do anything but sack them. I bet they'll try hard not to, though.

In reply to wayno265: i'll bet my last pound on that of the c.18000 complainants, only a tiny fraction of them have actually listened to their broadcast. I for one beleive it was pure comedy genius and that they should be vindicated from what was broadcast as they didn't edit or approve for it to be released.

In reply to anthonyecc: why do you need to listen to something to complain? surely the facts are what they are

In reply to anthonyecc:

There seems to be a generational divide over this storm in teacup. Younger listeners finding the broadcast funny, older ones outraged.

Anyway, they've both been suspended now. Shame, I quite enjoyed Ross as a film critic.

In reply to DougG:

Actually, I think there is a huge difference between your scenario there and what happened in this case. There seems to be a big difference of motivation for a start. These two guys are performers who make a living out of being cheeky sometimes to the point of being offensive. They were doing this as a performance, during which they got carried away and went too far. But it was still supposed to be a comedic performance to a comic actor and to the public. Obviously now we all know that it crossed the line into being something quite offensive, but basically they got carried away during a performance and behaved bloody stupidly. No question about that, but it's probably very different from the scenario you're trying to equate it with.

And if cheeky comic performers are required to be TOO careful and measured, then there is a bit of a danger that everyone will get a little scared about it, and something somewhere will be lost, something wider and more valuable than just these two guys. So it is actually pretty important to see this thing for exactly what it is, and not assume it's the same as you ringing your neighbour. It needs some accuracy and balance and proportionate response, and that's the opposite of what it seems to be getting.

In reply to johnj: thats ridiculous, you can't really derive what actually was said from sound bites on the news. Have you listened to the broadcast?

In reply to anyone:

Both of them are overpaid idiots- money that comes from the us- the publics TV license fee. What they did was a disgrace. I am glad they have been suspended. Ross has no talent, and is not even funny. I 'm sure the BBC could find a replacement at 10% of his current salary.

In reply to anthonyecc:

No, I have no interest in listening to them; and your point is nobody can have an opinion of something unless they have heard the full story first hand, are you from planet Zarg?

In reply to anthonyecc:

Could you please give me your grandparents phone number so I can indulge in some comedy genius, I`ll send you the recordings, you could play them at Xmas dinner it`ll be a hoot, how you will all laugh.

Two things I hadn't realised until I read of their suspension this morning.

1 The show was recorded then allowed to "go out".

I Think JR is funny but RB can be funny or really annoying, so can take him or leave him.
This time I think they went too far. Something should be done, but I'd hate to loose FNWJR or the film crits he does. Why was it allowed to go out? Surely there is some editorial control?

2 RB has actually slept with Andrew Sach's granddaughter.
( by her own admission)

I don't know if that makes it better or worse.

In reply to pingod:

I'm wondering... how many of us had such strong opinions about Ross before this event? I know that Brand has divided opinion since his rise to prominence in 2003 (Big Brother's Big Mouth) but my impression is that Ross hasn't provoked any particularly strong reactions. Until now.

There's a phenomenon whereby if someone wants to complain about something, they'll very rarely stick to that single point, but will feel compelled t add three or four further points to the original one. I'm not sure whether this is due to the fact that at that moment their complaint has an audience, or whether they feel that the original complaint lacks sufficient substance without the further points added. Some of the ire levelled at Ross, in particular, seems to follow this pattern.

In reply to johnj:

actually yes that is my point, and i'm sticking to it. trial by media springs to mind. the media say people are outraged, people start to get outraged at cherrypicked soundbites and complain without listening to what has been said. Outragous

In reply to J1234:

they are all dead, thanks for bringing that up.

In reply to Removed User: there's a well recognised rhetorical / lingusitic thingummy of the power of having three or more things to convince someone

probably dates back to stools or pyramids or something

In reply to anthonyecc:

But anything goes, it`s comic genius. Or is it okay to insult Andrew Sachs but when we push into your private life just a little we get all " thanks for bringing that up" sorry mate you cannot have it both ways.

In reply to J1234: You do of course realise that to faithfully follow such a course of action you would have to do the deed that you allude to.

If nothing else the whole sorry affair has taken interest away from the OMM fiasco.

why hasn't that slimeball Baddiel also been suspended? he started it

In reply to J1234: he's not dead tho!

In reply to Removed User:

I'm wondering whether, if they do get sacked, we'll then get the classic next phase with the 'butterfly broken on a wheel' upwelling of collective guilt.

In reply to anthonyecc:

Its not trial by media tho' effectively the licence payers are shareholders in the BBC corporation, if the share value plummets cost cutting is needed, it's simple economics, nothing more, when the fat lady sings it turns out that these two cats are the fall guys, its the producers of the shows who really should be carrying the can. Like i say, I don't care, the BBC has little influence in my life.

In reply to Removed User:

I'be long been a critic of Ross.. whenever I've watched the chat show because of intrest in the guest, Ross has made a pigs ear of the interview (Morrisey, Robert downy junior). Do think he's good on Film 2008, but he's not up to the chat show host job.

In reply to johnj:

BTW, it wasn't raised (as some commentators expected) at Prime Minister's Questions.

In reply to Steve Parker:

Feel I have to add my bit!

Its nota coincidence that the 2 biggest morons in Britain today have teamed up together. Pair of complete idiots. Hang them both!

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

No doubt It'll be on question time tho'

In reply to Rimz:

In fact I'd extend that and reckon that anyone on here who condones this behaviour or stands up for them should consider themselves added to that list of morons.

In reply to Papillon:

I suppose a compromise could be reached in which he's kept just for Film 2008. I suspect Brand may be sacked because he hasn't even bothered to apologise to Andrew Sachs (if reports are correct).

In reply to Rimz:

do you not think that hanging is a trifle extreme?

In reply to Removed User:

Probably!

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
I suspect Brand may be sacked because he hasn't even bothered to apologise to Andrew Sachs (if reports are correct).

no, reports are never correct, they cherry pick points. Lack of evidence isn't evidence thereof!

In reply to Removed User:

It's quite dastardly and custardly.

I go for tongue removal for Woss and castration for Bwand.

In reply to anthonyecc: It`s the unasked for imposition into somebody elses personal life which is intolerable. Ross and Brand have no idea about Sachs relationship with his grandaughter and how answering that message will affect him. I have no idea how mentioning your Grandparents will affect you. I care how it affects you and do not advocate it. You advocate this kind of intrusion and but cannot tolerate it yourself you really are a hypocrite.

In reply to wayno265:

I heard it, i think its all been blown out of proportion. If it was on a TV comedy show no one would have batted an eyelid. I'm blaming the old folk that listen too Radio 2 and dont know that you can turn the radio off if you dont like whats on.

In reply to doz generale:

You could be spot on there.....Max Clifford giving his views in sky news right now

In reply to clgladiator:

Agreed - now why didn't that 'orrible Mr. Sachs just turn off his answer machine before hearing the message - doesn't that daft bat know these things?

In reply to J1234:

no, i'm not. get over it. It was spontaneous comedy and the fact that you cannot see that what you are suggesting is premeditated must mean you are not a nice person.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

curiously, whilst the BBC suggest (by omission) that Brand hasn't apologised and Ross has, the Mirror reports Sachs as saying that he's had nice notes and flowers from both presenters, and that they were welcomed.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth: i don't think Brand will be too bothered getting the boot- he's got a new book about philosophy coming out for xmas
might be worth a read, eh?

In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:

Indeed It sets the president that anyone can ring anybody up and abuse them, if they don't like it they can change their phone numbers and move house

Has the person that made the decision to air the pre-recorded show also been suspended or sacked? Surely part, if not most, of the blame must lie with them?

In reply to Cú Chullain:

I was just about to say the very same. You surely can't blame all this on just the two presenters...

In reply to Removed User:

I thought Sachs said he had heard nothing at all from Brand, but had had flowers and an apology from Ross?

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

just goes to show it's not as clear cut as all that!

In reply to Cú Chullain:

catch up - I asked that earlier

In reply to Gordon Stainforth: "If I haven’t solved the riddle of existence by chapter two I shall hurl the manuscript onto Nietzsche’s grave and French-kiss Bertrand Russell’s corpse."

In reply to Anonymous: what!?

In reply to Anonymous:

might be worth a read, eh?

Oh yeah I can't wait.

"Coz it's like, see, this geeeezer like called Descartes, right, an 'e was, like, totally messed up, coz like I used to be, like, addicted to heroin, might have mentioned it, like, see..."

Continue for 3000 pages.

In reply to Removed User:

"catch up - I asked that earlier "

Swot ;-p

In reply to anthonyecc:

What's you're phone number? My good friend Big Ron called to say he'd like to ring you later so you can have a nice chat!

In reply to Cú Chullain:

But this doesn't allow for axes to be ground.

In reply to Anonymous:

I won't be rushing to read it, given what the wally has himself said about it: 'The new book’s philosophy, yes, but more Clarkson than Kierkegaard. I’ll pontificate on subjects as diverse as West Ham, Morrissey and tea-bagging – all of which are potent ontological metaphors. If I haven’t solved the riddle of existence by chapter two I shall hurl the manuscript on to Nietzsche’s grave and French-kiss Bertrand Russell’s corpse. And I look forward to serialising it all in Bizarre.'

In reply


I'm listening to the recording now. It's not that bad.

In reply to anthonyecc:

What!!!!!!!!!!!!! Two pillocks phone up a chap, tell him they have had sex with his grandaughter, broadcast the RECORDING to the nation. And you think that is spontaneous and because I do not think it funny, I am not nice. That is some leap of the imagination.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
He should check his voice mail.

In reply to J1234: it's an interesting moral development case study actually - does one judge this on the behaviour itself, the intention behind it or the outcome - or some combination of two or three of them?

In reply to J1234: you are mising the point, THEY didn't broadcast it, Their employers did!

In reply to wayno265:

The Beeb has suspended them pending an investigation.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20081029/tuk-bbc-suspends-ross-and-brand-6323e8...

In reply to anthonyecc: my new version of events from looking at a couple of websites is

sachs was going to go on the show but didn't
they phoned him up and did what they did
a producer phoned sachs on the day of recording and asked for permission to broadcast - this was not witheld and sachs asked if he could come on the following week
show was broadcast
etc.

In reply to rich:
I cannot believe any civilised person would consider it acceptable to telephone a Grandparent and tell them they have had sex with their Grandchild. Everything else is just smoke.
What is interesting is that some people seem to think because it is entertainment anything is allowed. Would these people like to see Gladitorial contests and public hangings. Probably yes as intellectually we are no better or worse than Roman or Medieval man.

In reply to rich:

I think behaviour is something that should be judged simply by the act itself, and that the 'intention' is irrelevant.

In reply to wayno265: I think it's a bit depressing that the younger members of the UKC community seem to find nothing wrong with what they did. I wonder if it's simply their age and immaturity, or a reflection on current youth culture. I can't remember what I would have felt about it when I was 17.

There seems to be an argument that for their target audience, what they did was acceptable. Two points on that. One, there were victims to their behaviour. Two, I think someone may have raised this before, but if the BBC chose to broadcast paedophilia, there would be a target audience for what they put out that would find it acceptable. The boundary of decency needs to be set-out somewhere and in my opinion what they did didn't just dip a toe over the boundary, they barged right through it.

I've watched JR for 20 years and I can't remember being offended by him before, although as stated before I think he's been going off the boil a bit over the past couple of years.

The fact that they are paid high salaries from the public purse is an exacerbating factor in my mind.

I hope that the person taking editorial control has been suspended as well.

In reply to anthonyecc:

No your missing the point. They rang a girls Granfather and told him they have had sex with his Granddaughter. If it was broadcast or not is a seperate issue. I repaeat " They rang a girls Granfather and told him they have had sex with his Granddaughter"
Would you ring your Girlfriends Grandparents and tell them that???

In reply to anthonyecc:

They still did though didn't they? They still bullied an elderly man and upset his granddaughter and her parents.

In reply to J1234:

when you say 'civilised' what do you mean exactly?

also, find me someone who has explicitly said that it is aceptable "to telephone a Grandparent and tell them they have had sex with their Grandchild"


i don't know who 'these people' are but, if you're doing a survey, i'm not wild about the idea of public (or private) hanging - gladitorial? i guess it depends what you mean - i think, as with prostitution and the like, the objections would probably be practical rather than absolute