Ross and Brand

damage36

Oh my.

Ross went to the lengths of a personal apology to Sachs, and is a much better presenter than Brand.

But I'd rather see the Daily Mail got rid of, its easily the worst thing in the media, I loathe it.

passout

Ross knows that controversy means veiwers (I'll be watching on Friday) but he misjudged this one - there 'is' such a thing as bad publicity. I don't think that anyone should be sacked but the BBC needs a fundamental shake up regardless of this minor incident as I said before.

Why doesn't that nice lad Vernon Kay take over his role - he's ever so polite!

heavymental

By the way, the 'up their own arses' stuff is all bllsht too. Part of JR's act is to come accross as being in love with himself. He draws attention to it all the time as a comedy technique. He's able to do it because he's flawed. He's getting on a bit, a bit lardy, has a speech impediment and ridiculous hobbies and dress sense. If he was handsome, fit and young the technique wouldn't work as people would just resent him. RB also makes a joke of his success and the humour comes from his co host shooting him down. I can't see how people can miss the joke here unless they are so insecure themselves that they are genuinely keen to see them fail. Ok, they're are not to everyones taste but mainly because its often childish and puerile but never malicious imo.

weyayeman

"Ross went to the lengths of a personal apology to Sachs"

A letter and a bunch of flowers,so thats ok then matter over. :shock:
Their two tosspots and the least that could happen is to give them both haircuts and brand a bath.That will teach them.
Ross has got away with loads of filth and is always on about his manhood he isn't funny in the slightest.In fact he's a right prick,oh now I see why he goes on about it its from head to toe :roll:

ps never malicious?? so what's "he f----d your grand daughter" Im sure that was hilarious.

meagain

Does not Mr Sachs have any large friends? These two have always deserved a slap - now it's a good kicking.
Wouldn't it be so nice if they starved in the gutter....

hammerite

Georgina Baillie working with Mr Clifford. I predict that she'll be on the front cover of Nuts in 6 weeks time, no doubt offending her Grandad further by flashing off her personality.

She's openly admitted to having a casual relationship with Brand, and on her website (someone sent me a link) she mentions sex as being one of her favourite things in the world. Now my grandad isn't even remotely well known, but I wouldn't write that anywhere (why would anyone need to right that anyway, surely it's high up on the list for most people )

heavymental

Have you heard it Weyayeman? It wasn't malicious. It was just puerile and immature and was some unscripted material that got out of hand. Punishable by a slap on the wrist. Which is hopefully all they'll get as I think Ross is very good on his Saturday morning R2 show. He's good on his Friday night show and his film reviews are pretty good too. The occassional step over the line and slap on the wrist is the price you pay for treading the line in pursuit of good material. Thats where the humour lies; In being close to the edge.

I imagine that are number of people here were the kids scowling in the corner when the funny kids were getting all the laughs in class and only laughing when the headmaster gave them a clip around the ear. Me? I'm on the side of the funny kid as long as they don't push it too far, too often. You can keep your local radio DJ's and run of the mill sitcoms. The BBC would miss Ross. By the way. Who do you suggest would fill his shoes?

CHRISNOIR

Heavymental wrote:

Have you heard it Weyayeman? It wasn't malicious. It was just puerile and immature and was some unscripted material that got out of hand.

Exactly. The irony of this is that the original prank calls weren't funny in the slightest (not surprising; prank calls never are) but the over-reaction is hilarious.

nicklouse

just picked this bit from else where.

FWIW apparently there were only 2 complaints during the show (which had actually been prerecorded, so the producers should be shouldering any blame as they could have chosen not to air it).

heavymental

There's a few good jokes in this article.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7695722.stm

I guess if you don't find that article funny, well, we just have different tastes.

OFOAB

There's some irony in the fact that in 2007 Comic Relief produced a report to raise awareness of abuse of the elderly in their own homes. Repeated, sexually explicit phone calls to a 78 year old man is a pefect example of the type of pshycological and emotionally bullying that happens far more often than people would like to, or want to, believe. What an opportunity to drive home their message by taking action against some of their own.

boybiker

Ohhh do we get to vote for the public disemboweling of Russel Brand ?
The tickets would sell like hot cakes.

passout

boybiker wrote:

Ohhh do we get to vote for the public disemboweling of Russel Brand ?
The tickets would sell like hot cakes.

I'd buy one for sure.......he doesn't deserve it but I'd still like to watch anyway!

What about those shows where all they do is ring up and make prank calls. Aren't they worse? Celebs have th *iss taken out of them all the time on TV / radio and this girl was putting herself in the spotlight. I didn't enjoy the show BUT there are few double standards flying around here.

beverick

nicklouse wrote:

just picked this bit from else where.

FWIW apparently there were only 2 complaints during the show (which had actually been prerecorded, so the producers should be shouldering any blame as they could have chosen not to air it).

Intersting isn't it. According to the Beeb (R4 18:00 28/10), up to the issue hitting the media on Sunday there had been three complaints about the 18/10 show - all relating to the use of swear words and none relating to content or the calls.

I can only deduce therefore that those people (hundreds of thousands/millions?) who listened to the show had no real problem with the broadcast.

Since then there have been over 18,000 (BBC R4, 13:30 29/10) complaints and I assume mostly by people who did not hear the original broadcast and have perhaps jumped on a passing bandwagon.

That said, the calls themselves certainly seem to fall within what section 43 of the Telecommunications Act defines as a 'nuisance call'. Specifically:

A person who sends, by means of a public telecommunication system, a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
(b) sends by those means, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, a message that he knows to be false or persistently makes use for that purpose of a public telecommunication system,
shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both.

It would be up to the CPS and OFCOM to decide whether Brand, Ross or the BBC have broken the above law and whether a conviction could be sought successfully.

Bob

heavymental

boybiker wrote:

Ohhh do we get to vote for the public disemboweling of Russel Brand ?
The tickets would sell like hot cakes.

Yeh they would, to spanners like you without a sense of humour. :roll:

boybiker

Heavymental wrote:

boybiker wrote:

Ohhh do we get to vote for the public disemboweling of Russel Brand ?
The tickets would sell like hot cakes.

Yeh they would, to spanners like you without a sense of humour. :roll:

OOOhhhhh bitchy.
I dunno why you defend the guy he's a talentless moronic w@nker.

Le Commentateur

Most complainants are probably upset that these two clowns get so well paid for acting like pre-teens.

Personally I think they are merely the performing chimps in the circus and that the ring-masters - the production team - especially the programme editor and commissioning editor or controller should be brought to account, as it is another example of poor procedure (remember, last year it was abuse of phone-in competitions) and that gives opportunist politicians ammunition to attack the BBC with.

boybiker

And not only is he a talentless moronic w@nker but he is also, I am lead to believe, single handedly responsible for all of the following:-
The Credit Crunch
World War 2
Communism
Aids
Harold Shipman
Anything bad that ever happened to anyone, ever
The cancelling of Noel's House Party
The death of Arthur Fowler
The hindenburg disaster
The fact that John Cleese couldn't follow Fawlty Towers
When he told him, Pike
John Lennon getting shot
Andrew Sach's career after Fawlty towers
Andrew Sachs' career before Fawlty Towers
The challenger disaster
When Apollo creed got killed in Rocky 4
The matrix 2 and 3
Hitler's vegitarianism
Third world debt
When Rasputin was shot until he was dead
When Mr.T killed Mickey in Rocky 3
Having to put the clocks forward and losing an hour of sleep
The Daz Doorstep Challenge with Danny Baker
Grey squirrels becoming endangered in the UK
Whenever someone drops a biscuit in their cup of tea
The changing of "marathons" to "Snickers"
Kerry Katona's drinking
The smoking ban
Inventing the fictional concept of Global Warming
Ghengis khan
The war of the roses
Blackadder series 1
Richard Branson's failed balloon attempts
"Fun size" chocolate bars
Sega Dreamcast
Oscar Wilde getting "banged up" for buggery
Chris Moyles getting his break in the radio industry
Queer eye for the straight guy
Crack cocaine
Soft R's
Blokes with long hair
Andrew Sachs' Granddaughter's appearence in next year's IACGMOOH and Celebrity Big Brother
The sinking of the Belgrano
Roald Amundsen beating Scott to the South pole
Homelessness
Titanic (the ship)
Titanic (the film)
Tupac getting shot
Notorious BIG getting shot
Ghandi getting shot
Weekend at Bernie's 2 being shot
Spur's 2008/2009 season
Special Brew
Popcorn eaten in cinemas
Michael J Fox getting Parkinsons disease
Countdown being cancelled
Fathers for Justice
Chris Evans inexplicable fame and fortune
Lottery scratchcards

and I want blood!!

heavymental

boybiker wrote:

Heavymental wrote:

boybiker wrote:

Ohhh do we get to vote for the public disemboweling of Russel Brand ?
The tickets would sell like hot cakes.

Yeh they would, to spanners like you without a sense of humour. :roll:

OOOhhhhh bitchy.
I dunno why you defend the guy he's a talentless moronic w@nker.

Oh I dunno BB, it just gets on my wick when people are so keen to see others get nailed and lose everything. Plus I think the guy's pretty funny myself. He's quick, witty and has a unique style. Ok, he's often childish but he's a funny. Still, comedy, as with music, books and everything else is a matter of taste. It just so happens that I think I have good taste where you don't. You no doubt think the same of me. Its the same in sport. Legions of people in this country would like to see Andy Murray dead in hole for some lame reason or other. But no doubt partly because he's successful and they're not.

heavymental

boybiker wrote:

Chris Evans inexplicable fame and fortune

and I want blood!!

See! Here's another one. Someone who's had his ups and downs but is essentially a good guy. And you hate him?! Assuming you agree with all the stuff you copied and pasted.

I really am intriqued to know who exactly you do admire in the public eye and for what reasons? Or, who else you hate for being successful where you don't feel they deserve it.

Infamous

RB is the funniest man alive. JR is a middle aged bloke who can't speak his R's pwoperly.

There's no denying what they did was wrong, however the way the media, and then the public, have reacted to it is absolutely mental.

This is the same public that complained in their droves when anne robinson put wales into room 101...

Also the timing of the "scandal" is odd, it took 8 days for the story to hit the news (the same amount of time it takes for the show to fall off iplayer) and this week Brand is on buzzcocks AND his new series.

Big Red S

Infamous wrote:

RB is the funniest man alive.

I keep being told this, but I've yet to see it demonstrated.

So I'm going to treat that theory as I do the idea that the beginning of Genesis is a blow-by-blow account of the creation of the universe.

heavymental

Now, Buzzcocks. That is a crap show. I can't stand Simon Amstel mercilessly picking on someone every week. Its never funny watching someone get picked on and I'm surprised they usually take it so well. Mark Lamaar used to do it aswell and as I've never seen him be so vindictive anywhere else I can only assume its a part of the shows concept.

Obviously. Some people will ask what the differnce is with the Sachs case. My response would be that it wasn't to his face. It was to a faceless answer machine hence they got carried away.

Infamous

Big Red S, it's opinion of course. You probably prefer someone like Lenny Henry or Arthur Askey or Jim davidson.

horses for courses innit.

passout

What ever happened to peace, love and understanding? Some of these posts are pretty hateful - why does it bother people so much? Jealous of their high salaries or is it the 'I could do that job' factor? I think that they are both talented (although Brand's not really to my taste), intelligent and pretty entertaining. They've bothdone well condsidering how 'stupid' or 'chimp like' they are.

By the way Biker Boy - Noels House Party was awful. It's a tregedy that it took a mans life to end it but I was glad it ended!

Porgy

thanks to the loathesome Daily Mail 20 odd thousand people have now been "offended" by something they would otherwise never have even have been aware of.

The day I agree with the Daily Mail on anything is the day I will go willingly to my grave.

Porgy

passout wrote:

Jealous of their high salaries?

I think yes considering how often it has been mentioned by posters. It's an irrelevent piece of informaiton in my view. Either the remarks are offensive or they're not.

Porgy

passout wrote:

What ever happened to peace, love and understanding?

Stamped on by the Daily Mail - your super soaraway Nazi sympathising daily newspaper.

passout

Are you Guardian reader by any chance? Personally I read the Telegraph - the thinking man's Mail!? But I do agree about the Mail it writes to provoke a reaction amongst the general public but fails to objectively analyse what happened in any depth. It doesn't separate editorial from 'news'. I know the broadsheets all have some bias (it's impossible not to) but at least they are more likely to present the facts in a less hysterical fashion. I kind of like the Mirror & Sun becuasue they are unpretentious fun / muck rakers. What I hate most about the Mail is the way it pretends to be a proper paper (with decent investigative journalism) when it clearly isn't. That said i feel the broadsheets have been dumbing down in recent years but I still like them. Rant over.

Porgy

passout wrote:

Are you Guardian reader by any chance?

No. Nor do I wear sandals - but I do eat yogurt (but then doesn;t everyone these days?)

I read the Independent - stopped buying the Guardian over ten years ago due to its unbearable bias towards New Labour and the ever expanding lifestyle content of the paper.