Jonathan Ross

No idea but he hasn't done his reputation any favours hanging out with the people he had.

Birds of a feather and all that

Given that he is 10 years older than his wife and they met when she was 16, married when she was 18 I can’t say I’d be overly surprised.

I’d never heard of the fact they met when she was 16 and him 26 until yesterday, which surprised me as that kind if age set up normally comes up, but I assume it’s flown under the radar a bit because they’re still married.

I’m not sure you can make him guilty by association, and back when him and Jane got together, this age gap was common and not frowned on.

I have never understood why given he made those horrible calls to Andrew Sachs with Brand that he wasn't sacked by the BBC. How he is still working?

Jonathan Ross is revolting. He has that sort of sleasy air about him - I can't quite put my finger on why but there is something a bit vile there. Maybe it's because he gives an impression of thinking he's ultra actractive to women when he obviously isn't. Or on his chat show sometimes laughs along an inappropriate jokes.

Like this when Aisling Bea takes on an inappropriate question and runs with it to make them all uncomfortable. Romesh Ranganthan also not impressed with Ross. It's grotesque.

I have never understood why given he made those horrible calls to Andrew Sachs with Brand that he wasn't sacked by the BBC. How he is still working?
Those phone calls were pre-recorded and given the green light by BBC production staff. It beggars belief really.

I don't like Jonathan Ross. I've always found him annoying. The Andrew Sachs thing was disgusting. And he clearly chose some dodgy mates.

However, I don't think it's fair to suggest that he has done anything wrong unless there is actual evidence of this. We don't actually know what he did and didn't know about Brand.

It is possible to be a wanker without actually being a criminal, and it's important that we maintain that distinction.

To be clear, I'm not saying that he hasn't done anything wrong. Who knows what may come out in time about anyone in the public eye.

I just think we need to be careful about throwing out allegations based on gut feeling alone.

Aisling was totally brilliant in how she handled this. Shame she had to, but what a total win for her.

Absolutely.

It's a very distasteful joke that isn't remotely funny. But a bad joke does not in itself prove what he did or didn't know.

Also he was sacked by the BBC, but found (probably) better paid work elsewhere quickly.

He always seems to have been able to maintain the decent family man image despite the company he keeps, the "jokes" he makes and a wife he groomed when she was 16yo.

I've always thought him very slimy and it wouldn't surprise me at all if he's on the list of men (hopefully) feeling uncomfortable atm, which of course doesn't make him guilty of anything.

He's just so gross. He says here "I was just backstage at THE URINAL chatting to Miranda Hart". That's so nasty, cruel and denigrating of women - implying that a noted and successful comedic actress and writer is a man in drag just because she is tall. She just laughs along no doubt to show she can take a joke. One minute in here:

The whole thing is pretty unpleasant so called comedy mainly insulting people just after he makes another supposed joke denigrating women (Saying they in their finery they all look like "the one you'd definitely sleep with on the apprentice") at about 2:50 Patricia Hodge is in the centre of the table looking very unamused.

He's already stated he didn't write the script. Most award presenters don't, they just read it.

Whether he could have refused to say it is another matter.

Jonathon Ross, one of the most sought after presenters on the planet at the time, could absolutely have refused to say it. Do you think the autocue, on stage, at the event was the first time he saw the script?

I’ve said this on another thread about association with a criminal shouldn’t make one guilty. Yes Ross isn’t up my street but I don’t think people can go around accusing others with no evidence. If there’s evidence out there it will be found in the end.

You're on the Walliams thread defending him too, aren't you?

My nickname for him has been “Uncle Disgusting” for many years - watch old footage of him interviewing young female stars like Britney and it is creepy as hell

I do agree that it’s possible to be awanker without being a criminal - can’t stand the bloke but I don’t think lots have come forward with similar accusations - there was a definite ‘nuts and zoo’ type ‘humour’ around at that time, be it Ross, Chris Evans, a whole bunch of them including a lot of magazine journalists and a fair few women in that sector too going along with it to be one of the boys- Not saying it was ok at all - it wasn’t- but it was fairly prevalent and not just one person.

There's a lot to be said for the expression "judge a man by the company he keeps". Decent people with moral integrity tend to have similar friends. If you aren't a misogynistic creep, you tend not to hang round with people like them.

Ross was and remained good friends with Brand for a long time.

The Andrew Sachs phone call was in 2008.

In 2013, Ross said it had been a bonding experience for them.

Ross told how the incident had been a bonding experience for the two of them - and had been a "genuinely nice thing" which had resulted from the controversy."Russell and I went through an unusual experience together and even though we're both embarrassed by what we did, that's fair enough - but at the same time, the only genuinely nice thing that came out of it for me was the fact that we became very close," he said.

https://www.itv.com/news/2013-02-01/russell-brand-and-jonathan-ross-talk-of-their-regret-over-sachsgate

In 2017, Brand married Laura Gallacher and Ross was at his wedding

https://www.aol.co.uk/articles/celebrities-were-guests-russell-brand-110155000.html

I'm not giving him the benefit of the doubt at all. I'm simply saying that we don't actually know what he did or didn't know, or what he may or may not have done.

I absolutely agree that we should stop enabling predatory men. There has clearly been a culture in which "talent" (sic) has been allowed to get away with things that nobody should have been allowed to get away with. I just think that there is a very real risk that throwing out allegations without any real evidence potentially undermines the credibility of real witnesses coming forward with actual reports of harm.

This is exactly the kind of behaviour which allows the apologists for these predatory men to allege that they are victims of a witch hunt.

If anyone has genuine evidence in relation to Jonathan Ross, then bring it on. I have no desire to defend him.