Russell Brand, Jonathan Woss and Andrew Sachs

[JoolsToo]

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/3263328/Russell-Brand-and-Jonathan-Ross-joke-radio -phone-calls-just-werent-funny.html

Have we not had a discussion about this? I'm surprised.

Seedy, sordid, unfunny little men pad obscene amounts of money to be obscene.

What's your view?

Wintera - I've read the whole thread and nobody has compared her to a rape victim - you just made that up to create a straw man. The closest anyone came was me

"Does you apply that reasoning to other kinds of abusive behaviour? Is physical aggression okay, if the woman victimised is a nag? Or is sexual harassment okay if she wears a tight fitting top? Where do you draw the line?"

When people insist that relatively few people complained immediately - how do you think a complaint about a radio programme gets through? People generally listen to their radios while driving or working. They relatively rarely have instant access to a means of making a complaint! Emails and letters will be written when they have a chance.

Oh well done beanie

Glad you got a laugh anyway

It's lack of respect for your elders, plain and simple. My Dad's dead now but I remember him being terribly upset when a male "friend" of my sister wrote suggestive remarks about her in a school journal she had in her teens. And she hadn't even done anything with the guy!
And whatever the poor girl looks like or whether she had such a lapse in common sense and taste to sleep with Russell Brand, he is not being a gentleman to brag about it. If any of my sons ever do that they will be grounded, 33 or not!

I was referring to a line somebody said about people saying she was asking for it etc..

Agree that nobody directly compared her to a rape victim though.

beany, no I should imagine the few people who choose to listen to that couple of idiotic oafs on Radio 2 in the middle of the night are few and unlikely to complain, as no doubt you have to be pretty much into this kind of slow-witted humour to enjoy it. It is even more stupid, however, to say you can only have an opinion on something if you happened to witness it. As I said earlier, I was very upset when my mother was mugged in the street. I was not upset at the time it happened, as I didn't know about it then, but only when told about it later. Is that clear enough for you Beany?

Umm... I know it's been widely reported on ITN and Sky, and in the papers. But watched BBC Breakfast this morning and not one word about it! Did I miss it?

It's been reported on Radio 4 news quite a lot. There isn't a BBC blackout or anything.

I have often wondered how Jonathan Ross was valued so much by the BBC. Would it really be a problem if his Friday night show was axed.

Think of where the money that is wasted on his wages could go. BBC needs to work on making programmes rather than throwing money at boorish oafs in the hope they are seen as popular.

As for Brand, he is sometimes really funny, int he End of The Year show at least. But articulate slagging is still slagging. What do you expect from him though?

Ross' Friday night show has viewers because of the guests

there are plenty of talented people in the industry who would take it over for a fraction of his six-million salary

"They relatively rarely have instant access to a means of making a complaint! Emails and letters will be written when they have a chance." I bet you the 70 complaints flooded in after the publicity though!

Brand as a rule doesn't get that many complaints. Though there was one the week before which said

"Some of the jokes on the programme were terribly offensive. Making a crucifix out
of a penis and making jokes about sucking people off under a fig leaf is really just
taking things too far. This show was incredibly smutty and I couldn't believe I was hearing it from the BBC."

and

"I found Russell Brand's jokes about Jesus Christ having an erect penis very
offensive."

"As I said earlier, I was very upset when my mother was mugged in the street. I was not upset at the time it happened, as I didn't know about it then, but only when told about it later. Is that clear enough for you Beany? "

very different scenario.

Sorry - but most of these complaints have been made by people who

a. want to knock the licence fee
b. Dislike Russell Brand already
b. Ditto j Ross

They are jumping ona bandwaggon.

I'm not 'offended', but I don't have to be offended to have a view on the quality of broadcasting. I am not 'offended' by Brand making non-stop facile reference to his mic being a prick all the way through BBLB etc etc, I just think it is rock-bottom standard output. Ditto this sub-teenage boy stunt - which is terrible behaviour to Sachs. If i was Sachs I would be very angry.

They should be sacked and the BBC should have more sense and stop trying to compete with banal YouTube mock-shocking drivel to attract an audience of juvenile sniggerers.

And - if you were really as angry as some of the people sound (on 26th/27th Oct) then why wait 7+ days to express the anger. As it is there really are very few complaints.

beannie - i'm not sure what your argument is about.

People are entitled to a view on an event that happened, most threads on Mn are about events that the discussion particpants were not present for! Most people on this thread have not complained to the BBC, but are discussing their views on Brand, Russell, the event, and the BBC's editorial policies. They are valid opinions!

Beanie - I have to ask. Apologies if i'm way off. Do you know either presenter?

beanie there are many, many complaints. It doesn't matter when they were made, it is utterly irrelevant.

The BBC as a Corporation is more than aware of the many, many ways content can be "consumed" after an initial broadcast.

For someone who seems so excessively proud of their (poorly understood) knowledge of a very old internet meme you seem peculiarly luddite when it comes to this issue.

This is how the media works now - some things sink without a trace and others get enormously amplified through other media and become talking points. That piece of (pre-recorded) radio was made and published in that context. Brand, Ross, and the producers should have taken it into consideration. It's part of their job to do so.

I'm sorry beany, but you are being utterly ridiculous by insisting that only people who heard the show live have a right to comment. It is NOT necessary to witness an event in order to have an opinion on it - especially when it has been as widely reported as this event has been.

Please respect others' right to hold an opinion.

Not everyone beany. I used to work at the BBC and it is a fabulous organisation. What it does with the licence fee is very impressive. That it not to say I am an an unreserved BBC apologist - of course it makes mistakes.

Have never seen Russell Brand in action so do not know whether I think he is funny or not - I suspect not by what I have seen so far but don't really have an opinion.

JR doesn't float my boat, but it would be going too far to say I dislike him - bit of a prat maybe.

What they did and what their producers allowed was wrong in this case. Andrew Sachs did not deserve that offensive attack whether it was made public or not. The fact that is became public added insult to injury.

Beanie your argument is absurd.

I hope they are punished for the sheer nastiness of what they did. Entertainment now is more and more about humiliation and degradation, whether it's Borat making a fool of some unsuspecting person, 'slebs' being forced to eat maggots, or people with learning difficulties being set up on X Factor. There's nothing funny about it IMO, and I don't see why that opinion is less relevant merely because I didn't listen to this particular programme at the time it was broadcast.

It seems that ofcom and the BBC trust are now investigating this:

'The segment was pre-recorded but cleared for broadcast by executives at the station, despite Mr Sachs asking for it not to be aired. The BBC's management belatedly issued an apology, admitting that the calls were "unacceptable and offensive", and promised an internal review....

Ross has written a personal letter of apology to Mr Sachs, as have the BBC management, but Brand has not been in contact.

Speaking outside his north London home this morning, Mr Sachs said: "They apologise to me and they say 'how awful for Mr Sachs', but nobody has offered any apology to my granddaughter. I replied to Jonathan Ross and suggested that is where he should direct his attentions."...

Both Ross and Brand are due to host their respective Radio 2 shows this Saturday. A BBC spokeswoman said the shows would go ahead as scheduled and there were no plans to suspend either presenter.'

There was time for Andrew Sachs to have heard and complained about the messages and they still broadcast them, despite the fact that he had asked them not to?

How utterly bizarre. Whatever about the presenters, the producer or editor who made that decision is going to have some pretty serious questions to answer I would have thought.

i think beanie's point is that the audience for the show were not as offended as those who listened to it because of the hypw and then complain - IYSWIM

If you listen to it Ross is the one who brings up the granddaughter - misjudging IMO as he is on saucy russell's show and wanted to 'keep up'. In some ways I think Russell behaves okay - he is not openly offence (again IMO) it just gets out of hand.

It is kind of in the vein of the show I think.

I do not think either of them merit being sacked.

They won't sack the "talent". They'll sack the dingul's who signed off the recording. What amazes me is that this type of drivel actually appeals to anybody. 9 minutes of rambling nonsense, who the fuck actually listens to it.

"beannie - i'm not sure what your argument is about."

My 'argument' is that :

People are now complaining because they have been alerted to the show, Which was broadcast on the 18th Oct and only had roughly 3 complaints in the immediate aftermath, by the tabloids and other papers who have an agenda against the BBC because they disllike the government enforced television Licence fee.

I don't think most of these complaints should really be taken seriously.

I think they should apologise to Andrew Sachs and his grand daughter - I believe they have. I think both Andrew Sachs and His grand daughter, being in the industry they are in, should accept this apology and should make a statement in which they aknowledge that these comments were part of an as live broadcast which should have been subject to the editorial guidelines the BBC have but that they understand some people have a sense of humour which occassionally crosses other people's lines - but despite this that they do not think either presenter should be sacked.

I think they should all be honest instead of letting the 'moral crusaders' call the shots.

I think anyone who didn't hear the show and only went to listen to it because they had been told it was offensive shouldn't be complaining about something they didn't have to listen to if they didn't want to!

This whole thing is ridicuous.

I also think bringing the holocause or mugged mothers into this is pointless and completely off topic.

I was upset when I heard my little boy had been picked on in the playground. I wasn't upset when he actually was being picked on, because I wasn't there. Does this mean I can't have an opinion on bullying and bad behaviour?

People are prefectly entitled to have an opinion about two middleaged men bullying a very nice elderly gentleman in his own home, making misogynist sexual comments about his granddaughter, and broadcasting the lot to the nation despite being asked by the victim not to. I really don't think that is so difficult to understand. I think anyone who cannot see how horrible this behaviour was, has a severe empathy deficit.
Would you think it was funny if your own husband, say, got together with a mate to ring up an elderly neighbour and shout 'he fucked your granddaughter' down the phone at him? Or would you be appalled and horrified?