Russell Brand shouldn't be allowed near a telephone.

[Mark]

Any article that manages to successfully apply the phrase 'beastfully besmirched' gets a gold star from me.

[Belmit]

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.

[petemc]

"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]

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!

[Haly]

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]

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.

[Haly]

Originally Posted by semi-pro waster

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

[Rich_L]

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 &^%$.

[Haly]

Originally Posted by Rich_L

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

[Ravenlord]

The audio clips are all over youtube if you want to listen