Nah not really, read the first few lines and it was easy enough to determine that the Daily Mail bandwagon had been well and truly jumped upon

 

Quite. Don't know *what* the issues have to do with the Daily Mail in any context....

The comments on this thread show we have two types of people - those who think abuse is OK if it is funny and don't know where to draw the line and those who recognise that there are boundaries which shouldn't be crossed. Kenny Everett was sacked for far less offensiveness and he had real talent.

 

I agree that the joke is in poor taste and don't personally find it at all funny.

That is irrelevant: the BBC will act according to viewing figures and viewing figures alone. They will not sack Jonathan Ross, as his show is popular and puts bums on seats and they know full well that if they do, channel 4 will say: cheers BBC we'll take him off your hands!

Both presenters (Brand in particular) are renowned for being on the fringes of good taste. The difference between them IMHO is that Jonathan Ross generally gets it pretty much right, RB is just well....

Now, if people are really offended by what has transpired and want to hit the presenters where it hurts, then the best way is to turn off.

Both presenters will only benefit from the publicity generated by this affair, as they both thrive on controversy! So all the people complaining (many of which I suspect didn't even see the offending broadcast) will be doing is helping their careers.

You cannot judge a comedian by whether their actions would land them in hot water in a conventional job; it's not a conventional job - and there is a place and demand for near the knuckle stuff.

Much as it may aggrieve some, many would have have found the material funny or at least not sufficiently offensive to boycott the presenters. For those that did, fine they are as much entitled to an opinion as anyone else, but imposing their taste in comedy on the nation? No, sorry.

Both presenters have apologised publicly and it is the public who will ultimately decide their faith, by tuning into their work or not.

It really is that simple!

It's like people who complain about no-talent celebrities, famous for being infamous and then buy the gossip rags that subsidise their careers!! They are part of the problem! No demand, no product!

I suspect the bottom line here, distasteful though it may be to some, is that the UK public, on the whole, laps this stuff up!

Ns04

 

I can't remember Kenny Everett ever being offensive. A bit of gentle mickey taking at worst and he was side splittingly funny at times. He was a very highly talented entertainer.

Les

 

Quite offensive if you were Michael Foot I would say. Sounds like an eighties version of Russell Brand to me

 

Bloody Hell, I agree with Robin about something!

 

Wasn't he with Freddie Mercury for a while too? Just looking at the bigger picture as most know Freddie was very into his narcotics etc. Woulcn't have thought to be associated with with that would help a politicial parties campaign.

Unless the story isn't true?

 

 

 

Yes let's get rid of Jonathan Ross and get more quality DJs like Chris Evans, Steve Wright and Terry Wogan

Even less reason to listen to anything the BBC put out on the radio airwaves. Still at least they are not funded by a compulsory tax eh?

 

Get rid of the pair of them. One reason that only 2 people complained was because only people who like listening to purile crap would be tuning in. When it got out to a wider and more sensible audience then the complaints rolled in, rightly so. I'm no prude, but when 2 fully grown men berate and bully a well respected pensioner in public then it's no joke I'm afraid.

The very fact that such crap was released for broadcast (against Sachs wishes) shows how low standards are for 'entertainment' these days.

Yes, there's a witchunt. When someone is being paid 10-20? times the wages of our PM for a couple of barely watched/listened to progs there should be plenty of accountability.

 

No, you're not alone

 

Get rid of them and they will be snapped up by some other media outlet ala itv etc. all over some media hungry *****.

 

does the fact that this debate got on to sn say anything about us??? who cares people!!!
im ashamed it on here lol.

 

Points and larfs ..>>>


HA HA .



- maybe yon brother will help little jwonathon out with the mortagage over the coming months ...

 

ah but you care enough to comment

 

Best post of the thread

(actually making me a bit dizzy too)

 

What are the viewing figures for Jonathan Ross's radio programme again?

Apparently a large portion of the UK likes this kind of puerile humour. Is it fair to remove something that far more people voice approval of (via tuning in) than those who complain? Also, this was one prank that some people found offensive (understandably IMHO, but it is just that i.e. MY opinion) should a comedian be axed just because of one sketch that isn't well received?

I don't see Billy Connelly begging for scraps on the street after his rather unfunny and insensitive comments encouraging the execution of a British National being held captive by terriorists in Iraq whilst negotiaions to secure his release were being made (which subsequently failed). Why, because he was repremended for the joke; the audience didn't like it, but weren't about to condemn a distinguished comedy career for one bad gaff!

Also, getting rid of them in short sighted, do you honestly think they won't benefit from being sacked for being controversial and be snapped up by another channel and probably go on to become more popular due to the "tune in to see what they're gonna do next" factor?

Celebrities stand or fall on popularity ratings, if you think they deserved to be axed cause of one incident, you're entitled to your opinion. Just don't watch em anymore, if your opinion reflects that of the majority, they'll soon be out on their ***, if it doesn't, well you don't have to put up with watching someone you find offensive anymore cause you won't be tuning in. Either way, you win!

Ns04

 

A couple of posts have picked up on this point, but what I think is a more relevant issue is that it appears the vast minority of those who were listening to the show didn't see any issue worth complaining about.

And what we now have is thousands of complaints by people who were not listeners (or who didn't think it was a problem at the time).

Should a complaint from someone who has heard something third hand even be meritorious of acknowledgement? I suspect the answer is no, and it again shows the (abuse of) power of the gutter press.

I'd be interested to know how many of the people posting on this thread actually heard the broadcast - or are responsing to the no doubt newspaper media enhanced version of what took place?

My own personal Jury is out over this one at the moment as I don't listen to radio 2 and therefore didnt hear the broadcast in question. I certainly won't be accepting blindly what is printed in the press.

The show is pre recorded, and without question someone other than Brand or Ross will have had the final say over what gets aired.

That is the person to whom the BBC should be looking for answers - the person or persons who put the show on air.

And ultimately, the Director General himself must accept responsibility. Both individuals are known to push past the boundaries on a regular basis, so, and bluntly, what the **** did the BBC expect from them? Younger Terry Wogans?

What was actually said and left on an answerphone should be a matter for Andrew Sachs and Andrew Sachs alone to decide what to do with. If Andrew Sachs wishes to take no further action, then we all should simply move on.

 

Viewing figures for a radio show?

In any case it was a Russell brand radio show was it not?

 

You're welcome

 

Wether or not it was aired is a completely different issue to what was actually said. Transcripts are available that list the conversation and ultimately irrespective of what was aired the message left was absolulely unnaceptable and if it had been left for me about my family 'wossy' and Brand
would have both taken a beating.
I cannot imagine any one on here thinks to 'Public service' broadcasters paid by the tax payer should leave a message that insulting.
If Jonothan Ross and Brand phoned you up and left a message talking about ******** your granddaughter over a sofa, mentioning that it was good and talking about her menstrual cycle irrespective oif wether it aired would you expect some kind of action ? If an employee from a call centre did the same thing would you expect them sacked ?

 

Call, centre, possibly - because that's not what you would expect. Brand & Ross phoning me up - probably not, becasue that's what I would expect from them.

Its an exercise in managing expectations - something the media and the BBC in particular are not very good at.

But irrespective of what anyone else felt about it - it would be MY call. Not the call of someone who was not directly involved and who hadn't been party to either hearing the call or receiving it.

I tell you what - lets go publishing the transcripts of everything that's said on the stand up comedy programmes and get the comics sacked for that. Lets dig up all the mis-reporting by newspapers that have caused far, far worse impact to people and get the editors sacked for that.

A whole heap of crap was printed about Heather Mills on the front page. She got a tiny retraction a few days later a few pages further in. Did anyone get sacked for that? And did anyone care? No - becasue she was McCartney's ex, and the world had it in for her.

If Brand and Ross had called up someone the public "love to hate", none of this would have even come about.

The hypocrisy of the media knows no end.

 

One born every minute

 

Was it he who bought the Argos voucher for £31?

 

damn u lol...i guess i av bein sucked in like everybody else

does anybody have a gun so i can blow out my brains