'Funny Man' Brand and Whoss ...
30 October 2008, 04:00 PM
#271
Scooby Regular
So, lets's recap:
Pole dancer from a group called the Satantic ***** (granddad would be so proud) sleeps with cockmeister Brand who's career has been largely predicated around his bedroom antics (again, granddad would be very proud) and acts surprised when he brags about it.
Brand and Ross go on a radio show and brag about this on the answerphone of the granddad concerned (Andrew Sachs). A stunt which I personally find to be in poor taste and not funny!
ONLY 2 people (out of an audience of 2 million) see fit to complain. i.e. it was not offensive to the show's usual (and very substantial) audience.
A day later the Daily mail get hold of the story and despite its circulation of x million and all the coverage then given to the "story" on the TV and in other papers, a week later all they can manage is drumming up 30.000 complaints from people who didn't even listen the original show, and most probably, wouldn't normally even listen to it to be offended by any content within.
Interestingly, the person on the butt end of this joke, Andrew Sachs, at no point asks for an apology, nor demands either be sacked, but everyone else complaining is livid "on his behalf"
Both presenters sent a written apology to Sachs, admitting they went too far, showed poor judgment and apologised for offense caused. Both also then issued a public apology, which was very graciously received by Andrew Sachs.
But not the lady concerned, no, she appears in the home of the page 3 girls, the Sun (way to limit damage to your reputations darlin!). Of course, her actions have nothing to do with generating publicity for her own career!
Brand "resigns" so now 2 million people who didn't find him offensive and liked his show have been sidelined because 29,998 people jumping on the bandwagon due to ONE sketch that they deemed poor taste.
Except they haven't. Brand will be back with a new station and his figures will be better than ever as people will be turning in that don't like him as much as those who do for the same reason "To see what he'll say next". So, well done, Daily Mail, at least you've now ensured that you'll have plenty of Brand bandwgons to jump on in the future!
As far as TV/radio exes are concerned, a presenter stands or falls on viewing/listening figures, not by the quality of their character, nor by what they say! Some up-tight folks don't like to admit it, but Brands, erm, brand of humour is popular to many in the country and the simple fact is that many more liked it, or at least didn't feel compelled to complain (even when the stunt was known to pretty much the entire UK population) than were offended!
Does that make something right? No. An apology was in order in this instance in my view - they were out of order.
Does there need to be a witch hunt or sacking? No, it's counter-productive as it only promotes those who the complainants seek to get out of the limelight. The apology that was owed was forthcoming.
The only effective way of getting rid of a celebrity you don't like is simply not to support them by watching/listening to them! They'll soon be axed and in the time that takes you won't be offended by their antics! Everyone wins!
But that's not really what this is about is it. Some people just like to express their moral outrage!
Ns04
Pole dancer from a group called the Satantic ***** (granddad would be so proud) sleeps with cockmeister Brand who's career has been largely predicated around his bedroom antics (again, granddad would be very proud) and acts surprised when he brags about it.
Brand and Ross go on a radio show and brag about this on the answerphone of the granddad concerned (Andrew Sachs). A stunt which I personally find to be in poor taste and not funny!
ONLY 2 people (out of an audience of 2 million) see fit to complain. i.e. it was not offensive to the show's usual (and very substantial) audience.
A day later the Daily mail get hold of the story and despite its circulation of x million and all the coverage then given to the "story" on the TV and in other papers, a week later all they can manage is drumming up 30.000 complaints from people who didn't even listen the original show, and most probably, wouldn't normally even listen to it to be offended by any content within.
Interestingly, the person on the butt end of this joke, Andrew Sachs, at no point asks for an apology, nor demands either be sacked, but everyone else complaining is livid "on his behalf"
Both presenters sent a written apology to Sachs, admitting they went too far, showed poor judgment and apologised for offense caused. Both also then issued a public apology, which was very graciously received by Andrew Sachs.
But not the lady concerned, no, she appears in the home of the page 3 girls, the Sun (way to limit damage to your reputations darlin!). Of course, her actions have nothing to do with generating publicity for her own career!
Brand "resigns" so now 2 million people who didn't find him offensive and liked his show have been sidelined because 29,998 people jumping on the bandwagon due to ONE sketch that they deemed poor taste.
Except they haven't. Brand will be back with a new station and his figures will be better than ever as people will be turning in that don't like him as much as those who do for the same reason "To see what he'll say next". So, well done, Daily Mail, at least you've now ensured that you'll have plenty of Brand bandwgons to jump on in the future!
As far as TV/radio exes are concerned, a presenter stands or falls on viewing/listening figures, not by the quality of their character, nor by what they say! Some up-tight folks don't like to admit it, but Brands, erm, brand of humour is popular to many in the country and the simple fact is that many more liked it, or at least didn't feel compelled to complain (even when the stunt was known to pretty much the entire UK population) than were offended!
Does that make something right? No. An apology was in order in this instance in my view - they were out of order.
Does there need to be a witch hunt or sacking? No, it's counter-productive as it only promotes those who the complainants seek to get out of the limelight. The apology that was owed was forthcoming.
The only effective way of getting rid of a celebrity you don't like is simply not to support them by watching/listening to them! They'll soon be axed and in the time that takes you won't be offended by their antics! Everyone wins!
But that's not really what this is about is it. Some people just like to express their moral outrage!
Ns04
The BBC is funded by everyone (I know a lot don't pay
) in the UK.The management need to get real and understand that 'this' was never going to win them any plaudits. They have a responsibility to prevent **** like this hitting the fan. They failed
Deal with it and move on, and yes sack Ross..it's time he moved on.
30 October 2008, 04:01 PM
#272
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually he complained that the first aplology was insincere and that he would be expecting to hear more from the bbc management and the bbc are judged on quality of output not viewing figures thats why they get public money.
30 October 2008, 04:10 PM
#273
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Terry Crews of moderation. P P P P P P POWER!!
Posts: 18,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Ns04 but you've missed the point.
The BBC is funded by everyone (I know a lot don't pay ) in the UK.
The management need to get real and understand that 'this' was never going to win them any plaudits. They have a responsibility to prevent **** like this hitting the fan. They failed
Deal with it and move on, and yes sack Ross..it's time he moved on.
The BBC is funded by everyone (I know a lot don't pay
) in the UK.The management need to get real and understand that 'this' was never going to win them any plaudits. They have a responsibility to prevent **** like this hitting the fan. They failed
Deal with it and move on, and yes sack Ross..it's time he moved on.
There are two issues here:
If they failed in their obligation to ensure that a standard was maintained before broadcasting pre-recorded material on a show, that is the responsibility of the producer, not the presenter! So ousting them on this basis cannot be justified.
Objections from the license payers have to be taken seriously, of course, but at the end of the day, it's the figures that speak to the BBC about this. You can't please all the people all the time. If, even after a week of coverage from national papers and TV, all they can muster is 30,000 complaints, 29,998 of which occurred more than a day after the show, then sacking cannot be justified on this basis either, because the majority verdict was positive/indifferent.
Ns04
30 October 2008, 04:12 PM
#274
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was disscussing this with a mate this morning, he said they didn't actually leave any messages on Sachs anserphone. They then just started going on about what sort of things they couldv'e said - is this true?
30 October 2008, 04:28 PM
#276
Scooby Regular
I do agree that 'others' should get the big boot up the arris though.
Crap management never did any business any good and when it comes to public broadcasting standards are, rightly, expected to be high. In this case the standards were poor.
Separately;
All the talk of the young woman's 'virtues' are playground distractions. Get a grip.
30 October 2008, 04:31 PM
#277
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Markyate.Imprezas owned:-wrx-sti5typeR-p1-uk22b-modded my00. Amongst others!
Posts: 8,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are two issues here:
If they failed in their obligation to ensure that a standard was maintained before broadcasting pre-recorded material on a show, that is the responsibility of the producer, not the presenter! So ousting them on this basis cannot be justified.
If they failed in their obligation to ensure that a standard was maintained before broadcasting pre-recorded material on a show, that is the responsibility of the producer, not the presenter! So ousting them on this basis cannot be justified.
Objections from the license payers have to be taken seriously, of course, but at the end of the day, it's the figures that speak to the BBC about this. You can't please all the people all the time. If, even after a week of coverage from national papers and TV, all they can muster is 30,000 complaints, 29,998 of which occurred more than a day after the show, then sacking cannot be justified on this basis either, because the majority verdict was positive/indifferent.
Ns04
Ns04
30 October 2008, 06:46 PM
#278
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Terry Crews of moderation. P P P P P P POWER!!
Posts: 18,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sorry but how do you know this and what show are you refering to? Ross's show regularly pulled in around 4 million viewers and doesn't even make it to the top 30 viewed BBC programmes. If it was a programme vastly liked by licence payers surely there's be a much bigger audience.
After 7 days of national publicity which most likely reached most of the UK population, only 30,000 complained. It's hard to believe that many, if any, of them heard the original show, but lets be stupidly generous and say that all of them heard it and just didn't complain more promptly!
That's still only a very small proportion of people offended! Ergo more like it/were indifferent to it than after national exposure via the press than those who felt compelled to complain.
Regarding Ross's viewing figures. Top gears average figures are around 4.2 million IIRC Is that not a popular show?
That does not, of course, absolve, the presenter from making the comments, which I have repeatedly conceded were distasteful and uncalled for. However, they publicly apologized and that should be enough as it was graciously accepted by the person concerned. The witch hunt that followed was unnecessary and counterproductive to those who don't want the individuals concerned on the air!
How do you propose we measure popularity/strength of opinion if we don't take any heed of viewing figures and ratio of complaints to viewers?
The bottom line here is that two popular presenters are now being vilified for one bad taste prank that they have both apologized for.
As I have said previously, Billy Connely didn't get the same treatment when he encouraged the terrorists who kidnapped and subsequently murdered Ken Bigley (?) to just get on with it and kill him if they were going to.
I'm sorry but that's a lot worse than a call for a sacking made by a stripper who slept with a womaniser and is now using the fact that he has disclosed this, as publicity for their own ends/to further their career!!
Ns04
30 October 2008, 06:52 PM
#279
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Markyate.Imprezas owned:-wrx-sti5typeR-p1-uk22b-modded my00. Amongst others!
Posts: 8,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back from dinner!
Indeed, but a large part of the reason for that flies in the face of your argument because there is an inherent bias for people to speak out in complaint, but less inclination for those who approve or who are indifferent to be as vocal. Even so, and despite what amounted to a national vilification campaign, only 30,000 people complained (and its not clear how many of them called for a sacking), which is small fries compared to the number of people these folks have entertained over the years.
How do you propose we measure popularity/strength of opinion if we don't take any heed of viewing figures and ratio of complaints to viewers?
The bottom line here is that two popular presenters are now being vilified for one bad taste prank that they have both apologized for.
As I have said previously, Billy Connely didn't get the same treatment when he encouraged the terrorists who kidnapped and subsequently murdered Ken Bigley (?) to just get on with it and kill him if they were going to.
So from that anybody in TV broadcasting in similar bad taste should escape the consequences? Maybe Billy should have been brought to account, but I don't recall him having a multi million contract with the BBC.
I'm sorry but that's a lot worse than a call for a sacking made by a stripper who slept with a womaniser and is now using the fact that he has disclosed this, as publicity for their own ends/to further their career!!
Ns04
So from that anybody in TV broadcasting in similar bad taste should escape the consequences? Maybe Billy should have been brought to account, but I don't recall him having a multi million contract with the BBC.
Ns04
Just goes to show the extent of Brand's bad judgement.
Last edited by scoobynutta555; 30 October 2008 at 07:29 PM.
30 October 2008, 07:42 PM
#283
FOR ****'S SAKE!!!!!
This is the number one headline in the United Kingdom at the moment!!!!
I cannot believe that this has been blown to these proportions........I think both Brand and Ross are funny ******* and if you give them free reign to do almost whatever they want on a show, then expect someone to get upset!
30,000 complaints.....how many e-mails and letters of support and/or saying "we actually don't give a sh*t"??
The made their apologies and they were accepted by Andrew Sachs. It seems to me that the tabloid gutter press have latched on like a little terrier (as they do) and the pompous whinging ***** within our population have jumped on the bandwagon.
There are some right whinging ******* in this country......get a life FFS!!!
There are kids being stabbed and murdered every week, old ladies getting mugged and raped, people being murdered, etc....and all these whingers are moaning about is how some privileged slapper's Grandad received a naughty phone call!!
JESUS CHRIST!!!!! It makes my fookin blood boil!!!
This is the number one headline in the United Kingdom at the moment!!!!
I cannot believe that this has been blown to these proportions........I think both Brand and Ross are funny ******* and if you give them free reign to do almost whatever they want on a show, then expect someone to get upset!
30,000 complaints.....how many e-mails and letters of support and/or saying "we actually don't give a sh*t"??
The made their apologies and they were accepted by Andrew Sachs. It seems to me that the tabloid gutter press have latched on like a little terrier (as they do) and the pompous whinging ***** within our population have jumped on the bandwagon.
There are some right whinging ******* in this country......get a life FFS!!!
There are kids being stabbed and murdered every week, old ladies getting mugged and raped, people being murdered, etc....and all these whingers are moaning about is how some privileged slapper's Grandad received a naughty phone call!!
JESUS CHRIST!!!!! It makes my fookin blood boil!!!
30 October 2008, 08:19 PM
#284
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Terry Crews of moderation. P P P P P P POWER!!
Posts: 18,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's not really practical is it - use your common
The channels have to make an arbitrary judgment call on when the level of complaints are such that it would look bad for them were they not to respond.
Some complaints with legal ramifications have to be acted on even if just one person complains and their complaint is deemed to be valid by the legal bods, and I think that was the angle that the press were focusing on, as much as the bad taste bit. Andrew Sachs said he would not even be informing the police though.
When the press are more interested in vilifying someone for making lewd comments about someone's grandaughter (who's public conduct is pretty lewd anyway) than someone who encourages a terrorist group to kill a British national, then I'd strongly argue that indicates a) their priorities are off wack and b) they just don't like the individual in question and will take any opportunity to pounce on them and get a bandwagon rolling.
As for the timely apology: well, the day after that show, there was no indication that an apology was necessary, two complaints, albeit justified ones (I do think the sketch was in poor taste) aren't enough to register on the hosts' radar! I doubt they even get told about individual complaints or informed about the figures unless there is a brew ha ha, like this one. When the magnitude of the complaints became evident, the apologies were swift enough.
Ns04
Last edited by New_scooby_04; 30 October 2008 at 08:22 PM.
30 October 2008, 08:31 PM
#285
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 16,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wish this a country cared as much about serious issues as it does about this crap...
Anyway I hope the Daily Mail readers get this on a T-shirt
NSFW
PB :: T-shirts
Anyway I hope the Daily Mail readers get this on a T-shirt
NSFW
PB :: T-shirts
30 October 2008, 08:39 PM
#287
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Terry Crews of moderation. P P P P P P POWER!!
Posts: 18,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wish this a country cared as much about serious issues as it does about this crap...
Anyway I hope the Daily Mail readers get this on a T-shirt
NSFW
PB :: T-shirts
Anyway I hope the Daily Mail readers get this on a T-shirt
NSFW
PB :: T-shirts
30 October 2008, 09:06 PM
#289
Guest
Posts: n/a
So he should be hauled before the courts. After all, pre-recorded or not, he/they did leave the messages.
Dave
30 October 2008, 09:16 PM
#290
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Markyate.Imprezas owned:-wrx-sti5typeR-p1-uk22b-modded my00. Amongst others!
Posts: 8,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really, really can't be bothered with this anymore. I'm not going to keep counter quoting, especially as you're twisting or not reading what I'm saying
Suffice to say if common sense was applied in the first place this conversation wouldn't be happening
Suffice to say if common sense was applied in the first place this conversation wouldn't be happening
30 October 2008, 09:18 PM
#291
30 October 2008, 09:50 PM
#292
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for Ross being suspended, he should tell the BBC where to stick their job in my opinion. Yes what he and Brand did was a little OTT, but to get to this level of attention and to result in one resigning and the other being suspended is just indicative of the stupidly overly PC nature of the BBC and the country to be frank.
30 October 2008, 10:03 PM
#293
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
31 October 2008, 02:49 PM
#294
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FOR ****'S SAKE!!!!!
This is the number one headline in the United Kingdom at the moment!!!!
I cannot believe that this has been blown to these proportions........I think both Brand and Ross are funny ******* and if you give them free reign to do almost whatever they want on a show, then expect someone to get upset!
30,000 complaints.....how many e-mails and letters of support and/or saying "we actually don't give a sh*t"??
The made their apologies and they were accepted by Andrew Sachs. It seems to me that the tabloid gutter press have latched on like a little terrier (as they do) and the pompous whinging ***** within our population have jumped on the bandwagon.
There are some right whinging ******* in this country......get a life FFS!!!
There are kids being stabbed and murdered every week, old ladies getting mugged and raped, people being murdered, etc....and all these whingers are moaning about is how some privileged slapper's Grandad received a naughty phone call!!
JESUS CHRIST!!!!! It makes my fookin blood boil!!!
This is the number one headline in the United Kingdom at the moment!!!!
I cannot believe that this has been blown to these proportions........I think both Brand and Ross are funny ******* and if you give them free reign to do almost whatever they want on a show, then expect someone to get upset!
30,000 complaints.....how many e-mails and letters of support and/or saying "we actually don't give a sh*t"??
The made their apologies and they were accepted by Andrew Sachs. It seems to me that the tabloid gutter press have latched on like a little terrier (as they do) and the pompous whinging ***** within our population have jumped on the bandwagon.
There are some right whinging ******* in this country......get a life FFS!!!
There are kids being stabbed and murdered every week, old ladies getting mugged and raped, people being murdered, etc....and all these whingers are moaning about is how some privileged slapper's Grandad received a naughty phone call!!
JESUS CHRIST!!!!! It makes my fookin blood boil!!!
Les
31 October 2008, 02:57 PM
#295
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Bring back infractions!
Posts: 4,554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I never thought I'd say it but Noel Gallagher is the voice of reason: BBC NEWS | Entertainment | Oasis star backs radio pal Brand
31 October 2008, 03:17 PM
#297
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Next door to the WiFi connection
Posts: 16,293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
31 October 2008, 03:17 PM
#298
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 3,447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I cant believe itunes pulled all brands podcasts
Russell brands R2 show was on the whole very very entertaining. Well said Noel Gallagher.
New_scooby_04, you're recap was spot on!!!
Russell brands R2 show was on the whole very very entertaining. Well said Noel Gallagher.
New_scooby_04, you're recap was spot on!!!
31 October 2008, 03:19 PM
#300
Scooby Regular
Yes, he's a sage 
I could not think of a wiser, better educated or well reasoned person to sum it all up and give us his insights 
Jees H bleedin mary...I've heard it all.
Give Noel all the license money.