View Full Version : Russell Brand shouldn't be allowed near a telephone.
What a cock this guy is, first he calls the Police during a live show and pretends to have seen someone who is wanted for assault and then he leaves obscene comments about Andrew Sachs' 23 year old granddaughter on his mobile phone voicemail and transmits them on air.
Brand apologises for prank call (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7508863.stm)
Brand apologises for phone stunt (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7691641.stm)
****. I want to call him a ****er but the filter won't let me.
/edit - Damn, can't call him a t-wat either :(
LeperousDust
26-10-2008, 15:34
Yeah heard this on the news before, Jonathon Ross involved too, quite shocked tbh!
Del Lardo
26-10-2008, 16:05
A very tallented and funny man who unfortionately takes things too far on sometimes. I really enjoy his Radio 2 show (well the podcast) as it provides something very different to the usual BBC DJ.
I have to disagree Del, I've never seen in anything where he's been even remotely funny. I've not heard his radio show but from what I've seen of him in other stuff, I have no desire to.
Del Lardo
26-10-2008, 16:12
I have to disagree Del, I've never seen in anything where he's been even remotely funny. I've not heard his radio show but from what I've seen of him in other stuff, I have no desire to.
If you don't like his style then I doubt you'll like his Radio show. Personally I like his style so find the show hilarious ;D
Really looking forward to Ponderland starting this week though the first episode is meant to be a bit weak.
leowyatt
26-10-2008, 16:24
I thought his part in Forgetting Sarah Marshall was excellent and he was very funny.
Kitten is reading or was reading his book and some of the stuff she read out to made me dislike him even more. I think the problem with him is, at times he can be very funny but also can take things too far, like the stuff what Feek posted.
I like his TV shows and stand up, not listened to the radio show. I've got his book and started reading it but lost interest halfway through for some reason. Might pick it up again sometime.
I've always thought him to be a scruffy, unkempt, unfunny tool.
I suppose this doesn't do anything to persuade me otherwise :D
The comedian, turned actor
Huh? Since when has he been even remotely funny? And certainly can't act. Forgetting Russel Brand more like.
Not even sure why R2 put him on, I guess to encourage people to go out on a Sat night?
A 30-odd year old guy making leaving obscene and offensive remarks on an answering machine, about the person's granddaughter, should be a matter for the Police. The person in question is a 78 year old man and I imagine he or anyone else would be genuinely shocked and disturbed by such an irresponsible and stupid prank.
LeperousDust
26-10-2008, 18:21
Huh? Since when has he been even remotely funny? And certainly can't act. Forgetting Russel Brand more like.
He started out as stand up comedian i think.
I think he's a very intelligent guy somewhere inside, he's just got a lot of issues that make him who he is i guess, and his way of getting through life is pretty controversial.
I did write out a nice little and grown up paragraph/semi review on his radio show a minute or two ago but Trio leaped on my mouse and somehow deleted it all.
So.
In summary of what I did say:
It's all about him, his willy and how amazing he is. It'ss a complete egotistical jargin like mess. All in all, it's as smelly as a big doggies doo doo.
Piggymon
26-10-2008, 18:54
See I find him quite funny :/
I think he's gone too far with the phonecalls but he does make me laugh.
See I find him quite funny :/
I've only ever seen him do some documentary on the BNP and that was quite amusing plus he was on Jonathon Ross some time ago and he didn't seem too bad then. The hoax phone calls are a bit desperate TBH though and the fact that he's done it before means he should be held accountable this time IMO.
I think he can be hilarious - just sometimes his ego and jibberish/tenuous links and ramblings are a bit WTF.
His phonecalls are way too far. There's pushing the boundaries and well... just taking a huge leap over the line.
I can appreciate he has a lot to be proud of and certainly has every right to talk about it - but not when interviewing people on his radio show and then constantly yabbering on about how many birds he's knocked up and didn't even know there names!??!
Whether it's improved or not I don't know but it was like car crash TV.... but in the respect that it I genuinely made me want to crash my car whilst listening to it. ;D
...constantly yabbering on about how many birds he's knocked up and didn't even know there names!??!
If that's true and he thinks that's in the least bit acceptable he's an idiot and I will never watch anything with him in again.
He is, always has been and always will be a wholly unfunny pillock and how he ever got his stupid ugly face anywhere near a TV camera is beyond me. If he just vanished off the face of the earth entirely and was never spoken of or heard from again, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.
I just read a very long interview with him and a couple of things jumped out..
MTV finally sacked him when he turned up the day after 11 September dressed as Osama Bin Laden.
Around the same time Brand lost his Xfm job for, among other things, reading out pornographic Sunday Sport letters on air.
I'm with divine.
Nice to know Im not alone :D
semi-pro waster
26-10-2008, 19:45
I'd always thought of him as the annoying unfunny git who does the voice for Big Brother and would constantly talk about how many women he'd had which was about all I knew of him until I watched a DVD of his live show with a friend. He's actually got some relatively decent material and he can be funny, he's still an overbearing tosser with too much of a penchant for talking about himself but he can be clever and humourous. His piece at the MTV awards was interesting also for how much he managed to offend with what was a relatively restrained performance by him.
This appears to be rather over the score though.
I'm with divine.
I always suspected it :D
I think it was my large shooter that attracted him.
Ravenlord
26-10-2008, 20:37
The radio show is fantastic, it is my favourite podcast to listen to and yes, very funny. Believe it or not he is an intelligent bloke and very quick-witted, but also very self-indulgent which can get irritating when he's overplaying it.
It was actually Jonathan Ross who shouted down the phone "HE F***** YOUR GRANDDAUGHTER" after they'd discussed it earlier on the show. Before then, Brand had been trying to act normal. I must admit I laughed when I was listening to it on the show, and didn't really consider it out of order, mainly because it was true. He DID **** his granddaughter...
It was actually Jonathan Ross who shouted down the phone "HE F***** YOUR GRANDDAUGHTER" after they'd discussed it earlier on the show. Before then, Brand had been trying to act normal. I must admit I laughed when I was listening to it on the show, and didn't really consider it out of order, mainly because it was true. He DID **** his granddaughter...
I can't agree that. Just because it's true he isn't justified to prank call a 78 year-old guy and have his "mate" shout *that* down the phone. It was absolutely "out of order", it was vulgar and boorish - just the right sort of humour for TV these days it seems :/
Perhaps it's just my age ;)
I've not listened to his radio show.
Justsomebloke
26-10-2008, 21:41
He is comedy Gold ;D
He is Disgusting, self absorbed, full of crap, egotistical & rude for the sake of it & very obnoxious, Genius if you ask me.
To explain I'd say I just Love it when some Stuffed shirt who thinks he is above the rest of us gets brought down to earth even if it is by an obvious Tosser.
I have had a few mentors & one once told me We all Crap but those that forget need there noses rubbing in it ;)
NokkonWud
26-10-2008, 22:04
I'm torn on him, sometimes he makes me giggle, other times not so much. His stand-up for example was awful, but on a TV show he is much better.
Excellent in small doses I guess would apply.
Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 creates offences regarding improper use of public electronic communications network, either to :-
(a) sending by means of network - message/other matter which is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or causes any such message or matter to be so sent.
(b) for purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another -
(i) sends by means of network, a message that he knows to be false,
(ii) causes such a message to be sent; or
(iii) persistently makes use of network.
127(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he -
(a) sends by means of a public electronic communication network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
(b) causes any such message or matter to be so sent.
So says the law!
Justsomebloke
26-10-2008, 22:13
(b) for purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another -
I'd argue that they did none of the above as they did it for a Laugh ;)
Ravenlord
26-10-2008, 22:17
I can't agree that. Just because it's true he isn't justified to prank call a 78 year-old guy and have his "mate" shout *that* down the phone. It was absolutely "out of order", it was vulgar and boorish - just the right sort of humour for TV these days it seems :/
Perhaps it's just my age ;)
I've not listened to his radio show.
Wink, wink, nudge, nudge eh. You're not as clever as you think you are brother, not by half.
(b) for purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another -
I'd argue that they did none of the above as they did it for a Laugh ;)
If someone shouted that down the phone, I'd be annoyed, inconvenienced and needlessly anxious. Laugh or not.
Mind you, I find prank phone calls about as funny as the Oncology ward at Great Ormond Street.
Von Smallhausen
26-10-2008, 22:57
He shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a TV let alone a phone.
He should be rubbed with sandpaper and hoyed in a vat of salt.
Nothing to do with the phone prank I just can't stand the scruffy talentless ****.
His grin makes me want to set turtles on fire.
Del Lardo
26-10-2008, 23:33
So to briefly summarise those who like him, like him and those who don't like him really ****ing hate him!
Think we'll need to agree to disagree on this one :)
Think we'll need to agree to disagree on this one :)
I disagree but I'll agree on principle with your agreement on disagreementing.
LeperousDust
27-10-2008, 01:40
So to briefly summarise those who like him, like him and those who don't like him really ****ing hate him!
Think we'll need to agree to disagree on this one :)
Marmite it is then :p
But to be fair, i'm pretty indifferent on the matter ;D:D I think he can be a tosser at time or at least annoying (at which i just switch over) and other times he comes out with some pretty clever/funny/sharp stuff.
Wink, wink, nudge, nudge eh. You're not as clever as you think you are brother, not by half.
Obviously not, because I haven't got a clue what you mean.
(b) for purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another -
I'd argue that they did none of the above as they did it for a Laugh ;)
I guess they'd agree with you as they clearly think it was a prank call. Not meaning to be offensive myself, but would you feel the same if they'd called you and insulted your family?
I like the guy and find him funny, but both of those phone calls are out of order and a step too far.
I thought he was funny on BBBM but sometimes hes a bit :/
Read this in the Metro this morning... so unecessary.
BB x
I both love and hate him. I find him seedy and obnoxious as a person, and clearly in these instances he's allowed that part of him to overlap far too much into his work life. I have to respect the fact that he's got himself off drugs though, and sought therapy for his sexual deviancy.
I like that he's controversial, witty, erudite, verbose and incredibly bright - many comedians only have one of these things, if any. Also, I'm willing to bet that in a one-on-one situation he's nowhere near as manic and would be an excellent conversationalist. Unfortunately he plays up to an audience and he'll keep pushing the envelope until stuff like this happens. Doesn't help that Ross is a child trapped in a floppy-haired body.
LeperousDust
27-10-2008, 12:44
(b) for purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another -
I'd argue that they did none of the above as they did it for a Laugh ;)
Although i have a strong suspicion, you'd be acting very different if this was done to yourself? Imagine someone sleeping with your granddaughter tossing her to one side then leaving rude messages on your answerphone? I know we'd at least see a thread on here from you ;)
Justsomebloke
27-10-2008, 12:55
I know we'd at least see a thread on here from you ;)
;D;D;D
Von Smallhausen
27-10-2008, 13:09
I both love and hate him. I find him seedy and obnoxious as a person, and clearly in these instances he's allowed that part of him to overlap far too much into his work life. I have to respect the fact that he's got himself off drugs though, and sought therapy for his sexual deviancy.
He still seems to hump the hair on a barber's floor or a rolling donut given the opportunity though.
Justsomebloke
27-10-2008, 13:10
Anyone see his Quip to Sir Bob Geldof ;D;D;D
Marmoset
27-10-2008, 16:21
Complete tw*tter who's never been remotely funny and never will be. Not helped by his stupid hair and having a face that just begs to be stoved in with a brick. :angry:
Matblack
28-10-2008, 15:34
Hmmmmmm
Has anyone else actually seen Mr Sach's grandaughter ;)
MB
I hadn't but someone on a car forum I frequent posted a link to her myspace (http://www.myspace.com/voluptua).
It's a bit NSFW though.
leowyatt
28-10-2008, 15:47
you mean voluptua from the satanic sluts?? ;D just googled her :shocked:
Is it true that in his previous life, Brand was a heroin addict? I can see why being the quick-witted junkie reformer is a good angle to play, but whether or not people find him to be generally funny or entertaining bears little importance as regards the complaint that has been made against him (and JR).
leowyatt
28-10-2008, 16:05
yes it is true Pyle.
Admiral Huddy
29-10-2008, 09:36
British humour is unique. A humour that even Americans can't understand; Slapstick, one liner, smutty etc. Not offensive or vulgar. There's a thin line between smut and vulgarity which seems to have been crossed by both Brand and Ross as they seek to push the boundaries. They have failed.
Vulgarity and offensive should be left to the Americans.
Greenlizard0
29-10-2008, 11:39
British humour is unique. A humour that even Americans can't understand; Slapstick, one liner, smutty etc. Not offensive or vulgar. There's a thin line between smut and vulgarity which seems to have been crossed by both Brand and Ross as they seek to push the boundaries. They have failed.
Vulgarity and offensive should be left to the Americans.
Pretty much what I wrote out the first time somewhere else.
Plus he NEEDS A BLOODY HAIRCUT!!! ARGHHHH!!
MarcLister
29-10-2008, 12:36
Brand and Ross have been suspended and their shows taken off air whilst the Beeb investigate this whole affair.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7696714.stm
So Friday Night With Bruce Forsyth anyone? :D
Are you listening to Radio One? :p
BB x
18,000 complaints. How many of those jumped on the bandwagon? 90%? 99%? The Brits don't do complaining, so WTF is going on here?
I'm not saying they don't have a reason to complain of course.
Indeed Mark. http://www.currybet.net/cbet_blog/2008/10/brand_ross_sachs_ofcom.php
Any article that manages to successfully apply the phrase 'beastfully besmirched' gets a gold star from me. ;D
I can't defend the initial offence, but this is getting ridiculous. I'm sure I read a quote earlier today, or possibly last night, from Sach's daughter, saying he just wanted it all to go away. There's an irony there somewhere. It's getting a bit like the PC brigade complaining on behalf of minorities, when the minorities aren't really that bothered.
"Fury after obscene call to TV Manuel," the Sun spluttered today as it reported Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross's calls to Andrew Sachs, in which the pair joked about Brand sleeping with the Fawlty Towers star's granddaughter Georgina Baillie. So enraged, in fact, that it dug out a topless picture from 2005 of Georgina auditioning for Page 3. The Daily Mail's website also got in on the act, showing its outrage at the telephone calls by publishing large pictures of Georgina in different scantily clad poses.
Brilliant.
Ravenlord
29-10-2008, 14:12
For christ sake the woman is in a slutty dance troupe, rolls around in fake blood for a living and has topless photos all over the tabloids. I wonder how many of the 20,000 complainers have actually even heard the programme, it's not even that offensive - yet another case of the media jumping onto a story, misrepresenting it ( all the while being wholly hypocritical) and the hordes of OUTRAGED readers getting on their high horses.
WONT SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE GENTLE OLD MAN!
Storm in a teacup springs to mind personally. It's getting more coverage than an MS sufferer trying to appeal for their right to die and an earthquake that's killed over 160 people ffs. It's hardly the end of the world.
It's also interesting to note that according to the BBC's timeline of events, the show was aired on the 18th yet it wasn't until the 22nd: 'Sachs' agent Meg Pool is alerted to the contents of the broadcast when a journalist for the Mail of Sunday phones her for a comment. '
And then the 23rd was when the agent emailed for an unreserved apology. I'm sure it wasn't for publicity ;)
Either way, why hasn't the person who agreed to air it been the one to face the most controversy? I'm sure there's unaired clips of various radio and TV shows all the time that would greatly offend someone, but instead they get removed before being aired. So who didn't do it this time?
semi-pro waster
29-10-2008, 14:42
Ravenlord, since you heard it can you remember roughly what was said? I didn't hear it but telling an old man that "he ****** your granddaughter" seems out of order, even if that was all that was said. I can appreciate that ones actions may have repercussions on family members but that still doesn't seem quite fair game to me.
I'm still not entirely sure why the telephone number was passed on either, there doesn't seem to have been a good reason for it, Russell Brand and Andrew Sachs inhabit rather different comedy circles. Essentially I'm wondering what Russell Brand intended to do with the number except prank call it? It doesn't matter if he hadn't planned out exactly what he would say and it went wrong, the intention to prank call must surely have been there initially?
//edit although I do agree with Haly, this is puerile nonsense and shouldn't be taking up space compared to other more weighty matters that exist in the World but since it is, it appears to need discussed.
Ravenlord, since you heard it can you remember roughly what was said? I didn't hear it but telling an old man that "he ****** your granddaughter" seems out of order, even if that was all that was said. I can appreciate that ones actions may have repercussions on family members but that still doesn't seem quite fair game to me.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7694989.stm has part of the transcript.
And Andrew Sachs was meant to be on Russell Brand's show that day so I'm assuming that's why they had his mobile number, actually it says that on the page I linked to :)
Indeed, by all accounts the timeline goes:
36 hours after airing - 4 complaints.
Once it became a 'news story' - 18,000 complaints.
Which, even despite the OUTRAGE, comprises 0.03% of the UK population. Jeeez
Storm in a teacup springs to mind personally. It's getting more coverage than an MS sufferer trying to appeal for their right to die and an earthquake that's killed over 160 people ffs. It's hardly the end of the world. I would say that's mainly because all the media organisations always have their knives out when the BBC screws up, because the BBC are a competitor which doesn't have to deal with all the crap that people hate, such as adverts etc. As far as they are concerned, the sooner the BBC dies the better so stories like this will always be jumped on and hyped to &^%$.
I would say that's mainly because all the media organisations always have their knives out when the BBC screws up, because the BBC are a competitor which doesn't have to deal with all the crap that people hate, such as adverts etc. As far as they are concerned, the sooner the BBC dies the better so stories like this will always be jumped on and hyped to &^%$.
I wouldn't be surprised at all! You're as cynical as me :D
Ravenlord
29-10-2008, 14:48
The audio clips are all over youtube if you want to listen
A very tallented and funny man who unfortionately takes things too far on sometimes. I really enjoy his Radio 2 show (well the podcast) as it provides something very different to the usual BBC DJ.
He is as funny as visage.
I see no appeal in him whatsoever, people like that leaves you wondering how the heck he got a job in media in the first place.
He was wrong, unfunny and I wish he suffer terribly from this. Taking the piss at the expense of others, so as to amuse your fans is not acceptable in my books. Especially in this circumstances where the receiver of such pranks and joke clearly do not like it.
It doesn't matter if all the people who complained actually heard the show first-hand or not. The chances are that the vast majority of them are licence-payers and as such are perfectly entitled to expect the BBC to conform to the standards they claim they do.
"Jumping on the bandwagon" is an inappropriate criticism IMO and shouldn't be used to write off the opinions of concerned licence-payers. I didn't hear the show first-hand either but having heard the content I'm disgusted with the conduct of the presenters and as a licence-payer myself, I want them to be held accordingly accountable, nothing more, nothing less.
For christ sake the woman is in a slutty dance troupe, rolls around in fake blood for a living and has topless photos all over the tabloids. I wonder how many of the 20,000 complainers have actually even heard the programme, it's not even that offensive - yet another case of the media jumping onto a story, misrepresenting it ( all the while being wholly hypocritical) and the hordes of OUTRAGED readers getting on their high horses.
WONT SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE GENTLE OLD MAN!
What the woman in question does for a living has nothing to do with this whatsoever. She wasn't the victim, clearly.
semi-pro waster
29-10-2008, 15:12
The audio clips are all over youtube if you want to listen
Ok, I've just wasted about 15 minutes listening to them. Now he comes across as unfunny and insincere which is not any better, rather than letting the initial mistake lie he decided to try and take advantage of the situation for some cheap humour. If he was in any way sorry then an apology off the air would have been fine but to repeatedly call up the answering machine leaving stupid messages did neither of them any favours here.
And thanks for the explanation Haly, it makes slightly more sense after you said that Andrew Sachs was meant to be appearing on Brand's show that day.
Ravenlord
29-10-2008, 16:04
What the woman in question does for a living has nothing to do with this whatsoever. She wasn't the victim, clearly.
If she's so concerned about embarrassing and upsetting her grandfather perhaps she ought to change her demeanour. She's a professional slut who sleeps with clients (from a different angle some might call that prostitution...) and I think that more likely she's OUTRAGED because she's had to answer some uncomfortable questions about it to her family.
Victim? A crime hasn't occurred here fella, though apparently several people have wasted valuable resources and tied up the phone lines by reporting it to the police...
Let's not forget that the man made a name for himself by taking the piss out of the Spanish either...
She's a professional slut who sleeps with clients
Does she need a photographer? ;)
Ravenlord
29-10-2008, 16:17
As a concerned LICENSE PAYER, who pays his LICENSE FEE to the BBC, and is worried about how his money, as a LICENSE PAYER, is being spent, surely Phykell should be just as concerned by the fact that he's paying BBC News & Radio, The Prime Minister, The Leader of the Opposition, every MP at PMQ's and the Culture Secretary to talk about this complete non-event. Still, I suppose there's nothing better to be discussing, like a major financial crisis, or an imminent, history-changing presidential election.
Regards,
Concerned LICENSE PAYER
If she's so concerned about embarrassing and upsetting her grandfather perhaps she ought to change her demeanour. She's a professional slut who sleeps with clients (from a different angle some might call that prostitution...) and I think that more likely she's OUTRAGED because she's had to answer some uncomfortable questions about it to her family.
I don't care what she says or what she does because that's irrelevant. Andrew Sachs was the victim of the "prank" and that fact is not mitigated one iota by whatever you happen to think of her.
Victim? A crime hasn't occurred here fella, though apparently several people have wasted valuable resources and tied up the phone lines by reporting it to the police...
I never said a crime had been committed and nor did I imply one had. The term, "victim" is perfectly justified and appropriate in this instance.
Let's not forget that the man made a name for himself by taking the piss out of the Spanish either...
Again, what on earth has that got to do with anything? Incidentally, he's done a hell of a lot more than just being a Spanish waiter in Fawlty Towers.
Justsomebloke
29-10-2008, 18:20
Either way, why hasn't the person who agreed to air it been the one to face the most controversy? I'm sure there's unaired clips of various radio and TV shows all the time that would greatly offend someone, but instead they get removed before being aired. So who didn't do it this time?
My thoughts Exactly. It was a recorded show that was ALLOWED to be aired by the BBC then they suspend the 2 WTF is that all about.
Either the BBC dude gets sacked ASWELL or Nothing should be done.
I cannot believe the stupidity of this with some Satanic Slut sitting on telly whinging about how she has been besmirched OMFGG ;D
Then on top of that The Time line ;D
This is a Complete Joke which makes England look a Pathetic joke.
AboveTheSalt
29-10-2008, 18:49
Brand has resigned from the BBC, so that's OK then ;)
My thoughts Exactly. It was a recorded show that was ALLOWED to be aired by the BBC then they suspend the 2 WTF is that all about.
I'd be pretty pissed off if i'd done something for work, been told it was ok by a superior and then 2 weeks later got suspended because they changed their minds after they'd embarrassed themselves with it.
Justsomebloke
29-10-2008, 19:12
Surely if there was a Problem the BBC would have Not aired the show & then suspended the 2, Or Aired the show then suspended the 3. I detest all this band wagon BS.
Then the papers with there OMGZ Kill the 2 wrong'uns written underneath pics of the Dodgey Doris concerned.
What makes me more sick though is that the Public lap it up & join in.
Kin'ell BURN THE WITCH BURN THE WITCH, It's like the Kin Dark ages again ;D
This is nothing compared to some of the stunts he has pulled, like for example, live on stage at the Astoria in the early days of his stand-up career, pulling down his trousers and pants (;)) and stuffing a barbie doll up his arse/throwing dead mice into the audience. He's totally self-destructive, and probably always will be.
Suddenly he reminds me of the ****ed up school kid who thought it was funny to be really disgusting.
Justsomebloke
29-10-2008, 19:21
Good read Kitt :)
I'd be pretty pissed off if i'd done something for work, been told it was ok by a superior and then 2 weeks later got suspended because they changed their minds after they'd embarrassed themselves with it.
They might be a "superior" in theory but I wonder if they're considered a lot more expendable than the "talent". It's only when the Director General gets involved that personalities such as Jonathon Ross can consider their jobs at risk.
Justsomebloke
29-10-2008, 19:45
He is there highest paid "star" isn't he ? I think the Question should be WTF are the BBC paying somebody 6mill a year for with MY LICENSE FEE. Yes even the unemployed have to pay for a TV licence ;D
Then the next question should be Who let this be aired On the BBC then sack him an all. As for Brand, What you see is what you get so tuff.
Ravenlord
29-10-2008, 20:01
This is ****ing ridiculous.
Von Smallhausen
29-10-2008, 20:02
Maybe it's just me but someone like Stephen Fry with a Ross type talkshow would cost the licence payer less and produce a far better show.
They might be a "superior" in theory but I wonder if they're considered a lot more expendable than the "talent". It's only when the Director General gets involved that personalities such as Jonathon Ross can consider their jobs at risk.
More expendable or not, Ross has still been suspended for something that was approved and I would imagine he's probably fairly pissed off at getting suspended for something he was probably told was ok.
Flibster
29-10-2008, 20:17
I hadn't but someone on a car forum I frequent posted a link to her myspace (http://www.myspace.com/voluptua).
It's a bit NSFW though.
Bloody hell! :shocked: :evil:
Still, nice to see that Brand has gone. One less gimp to avoid on the radio. C'mon Ross, do the decent thing and **** off as well!
AboveTheSalt
29-10-2008, 20:21
I'd be pretty pissed off if i'd done something for work, been told it was ok by a superior and then 2 weeks later got suspended because they changed their minds after they'd embarrassed themselves with it.I believe that the "superior" who initially checked that the programme involving Brand & Ross was safe to go out was the producer, Nic Philps who happens to work for Vanity Projects - a production company owned by one Russell Brand.
As I understand it, Philps phoned Andrew Sachs who said that he didn't want the offending sections broadcast. I suspect that he then checked with someone more senior within the BBC but perhaps he presented Sachs' response in a way that didn't make it 100% clear that he objected?
I suspect that Nic Philps will not be working at the BBC for some while and likewise Vanity Projects may be encouraged to take their unique skills elsewhere.
ALLEGEDLY ;)
More expendable or not, Ross has still been suspended for something that was approved and I would imagine he's probably fairly pissed off at getting suspended for something he was probably told was ok.
He's a grown man in his 40s, he shouldn't need telling that sort of thing is OK and even if someone did tell him that, he should have disagreed!
TBH, if you look at how contrite their apologies are, it makes you wonder why they didn't realise how wrong it was immediately *after* the event.
Dymetrie
29-10-2008, 21:01
This thread amuses me :D
"Jumping on the bandwagon" is an inappropriate criticism IMO and shouldn't be used to write off the opinions of concerned licence-payers.
Since I used that phrase first, I'll take that as directed at me.
Actually, I think it is fair. It may not be true for you, and it isn't true for all others (I took care not to suggest that I thought it was universal).
How many complaints were there before this media firestorm kicked off. A handful. 99.95% of the complaints have happened since. While that is only 0.03% of the UK population, I have a hard time believing that all 99.95% of the complainers didn't listen to the show, so why didn't they join the handful of pre-firestorm complainers?
Note - this criticism is not directed at anyone who isn't counted in these statistics.
Having listened to the conversation on YouTube, it was Ross who said it and who was pressing the conversation on - not Brand as much but obviously he had a hand in it so I think its a bit unfair that its Brand on the front covers being slammed for it and not both of them.
I bet a few people are thinking 'Satanic Sluts?!' omg wtf etc etc... if she was an English rose do you think the furore would have been moreso?
BB x
semi-pro waster
30-10-2008, 18:56
I bet a few people are thinking 'Satanic Sluts?!' omg wtf etc etc... if she was an English rose do you think the furore would have been moreso?
BB x
I suspect the name of the group was a bit of a godsend to newspaper editors really, how better to whip up a furore than with such a titilating moniker. I don't know if you've read the latest edition of Popbitch (if not, I'd suggest you should subscribe, I think you'd rather enjoy it) but it appears that English rose is not a description that could easily be applied to Ms Baillie.
I can't believe things have escalated so far!
I find Russell Brands show really funny :) I'll miss his podcasts.
People misbehave, I hardly think it's the end of the world like some reactions have made out; I don't condone what he did, nor Ross, it was infact stupid and very irresponsible for people in the public broadcast scene but there does seem to be a bit of a mountain>molehill situation going on.
I wonder how his book sales are going to be affected by all this polava??
AboveTheSalt
30-10-2008, 20:05
I can't believe things have escalated so far!
People misbehave, I hardly think it's the end of the world like some reactions have made out; I don't condone what he did, nor Ross, it was in fact stupid and very irresponsible for people in the public broadcast scene but there does seem to be a bit of a mountain>molehill situation going on.To be honest, I don't think that this furore is just about Brand & Ross. I think that it is to do with a much deeper feeling that the BBC has lost the plot.
One could have anticipated the expressions of shocked outrage from the Daily Mail; it panders to an aged, conservative sector of the public whose natural state is one of shock and outrage.
You also have The Sun, which quite by chance happens to be part of News Corp which also owns BSkyB. Nothing brings more joy to the hearts of BSkyB executives than to see the public having a go at the BBC and demanding an end to the licence fee.
Ross and Brand are repeat offenders but they are seen as easier targets than the very high profile Jeremy Paxman and John Humphrys who many see as being overly confrontational and lacking the respect for some of their targets that is perhaps displayed by Jonathan Dimbleby.
Anyhow, I am delighted that Brand has jumped and saddened that Ross has only been given a "final warning". I am sure that Brand will soon surface somewhere else, probably advertising hair care products ;D
There's a bit more than the final warning - 12 weeks suspension without pay. If media reports are correct regarding the size of the contract, that's going to sting to the tune of £4m. You can bet that'll more than cover any Ofcom fine at least, though I have no doubt that he can easily afford it.
I hope the person who decided to let it air has resigned too.
BB x
MarcLister
30-10-2008, 21:01
There's a bit more than the final warning - 12 weeks suspension without pay. If media reports are correct regarding the size of the contract, that's going to sting to the tune of £4m. You can bet that'll more than cover any Ofcom fine at least, though I have no doubt that he can easily afford it.Huh? £4m? Over 3 months? £16m a year? I thought Ross was on £18m over his contract. From 2007-2010. So about £4.5m a year. He'll lose just over £1.1m for the suspension.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathon_Ross#BBC_contract
Controller of BBC Radio Two? She's gone. Don't know if she was the decision maker, but she's at least the boss of those who are.
Huh?
Duly corrected. The media wasn't clear about the term of the £18m deal - all they said was £18m. I assumed wrongly, thank god.
MarcLister
30-10-2008, 23:11
Controller of BBC Radio Two? She's gone. Don't know if she was the decision maker, but she's at least the boss of those who are.Very unlikely I think. Controller of BBC Radio 2 would have several people between her and the Russell Brand show staff. Read on BBC News that it would have been an editor who let the show go out. So implies not someone from the actual show but an overseer.
Duly corrected. The media wasn't clear about the term of the £18m deal - all they said was £18m. I assumed wrongly, thank god.Yeah. I don't mind watching Rossy on his Friday Night With show but I can't watch Film 2008. I just find him cringeworthy on that. And even if I do like him a bit I'd be very angry if he were getting £18m a year. My Mum thought that too. I think the media are being a little naughty saying £18m as they know that people will assume that to be per year, like my Mum.
Instead it is £18m over his contract of about 4 years. Or £16.9m as it will be now. ;D
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.