Have to agree that the fuss should beover now and its time to get over it.

 

 

All this I couldnt care etc yet we still manage to get 8 pages of "discussion" on SN about it.

I cant believe in the whole world, this is the most popular current affair being talked about here.

 

No no no Haven't you seen, there are still some who want them to be burned at the stake. In fact they could probably just use the brooms that are stuck up their bums to tie them to and burn them

 

Personally I just think it's all hilarious. I can't bring myself to take any of this seriously anymore

 

 

pmsl, I couldn't resist

 

It takes all sorts, as they say....

 

This didn't bother me at all, the media furore around it however is ridiculous.

Fair enough, some people found it offensive and they have a right to complain, but to bring it to the point where it is national news and debated in the commons, well it just proves this country is screwed.

Personally, I found the Trevor MacDonald sarcastic comment at the National Television Awards last night where he mocked the homeless much more offensive than Ross and Brand having a pop at some self proclaimed "satanic ****".

 

Big ****....

 

And her Grandad ...

 

I have no knowledge of what you are refering to. But from his reply above it was both sensible and reasonable and seems to sum up the situation nicely.

Mary Whitehouse had an altogether different approach. Mary Whitehouse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While I'm here I don't understand the point that our political figures shouldn't comment on the affair as there's more important things going on. Of course there is, however, the BBC is publically funded, and if the argument went that you couldn't comment on anything but the biggest story of the season (namely the credit crunch) many issues wouldn't be discussed.


Idiots like these pair endanger the whole public funding question of the BBC, and contribute to the general slide in society of values and behaviour.

 

Firstly they were being abusive to Sachs and weren't calling the grand daughter's phone. Secondly, it's a popuar story to comment on due it's morally polarizing viewpoint. The bigger issue why it is a major story is its reflection of our society as a whole with non accountable behaviour and the sums of public money involved publically paid to the pair.

 

Endanger?????????????????????? how on Earth does it endanger it???? Are you try to tell me that this may make the government say 'right, in protest at the sachs saga we are abolishing the license fee'?????????????

 

Got to agree.

 

In case you weren't aware, there is an ongoing debate about the future of funding of the BBC with the possibility of it being commercially funded. Needless fiascos like this, especially from someone on £6m a year don't do the BBC much good when it comes to handing over £139.50 per year.

Enough of the question marks!

 

No, and taking the liberty to answer, I suggest he's saying that the majority of license payers will object to 'their' money being spent on bullying of innocent old men. You surely cannot defend this as profitable use of public funds???

 

I think 90% of people object to having to pay a license fee in the first place

 

90% of Aldi/Pound Stretcher shoppers...Accepted.
Also, you didn't answer the challenge.

 

Well if the grand daughter hadn't have brought Sachs into it in the first place then he wouldn't have heard anything would he.

Don't give me all this about him being a poor old defenceless old man, and a national hero and all that either.

Who really cares what they earn? They are paid what the BBC determines they are worth and they are far more qualified to make that call than either you or I. Ross in-particular has a very broad appeal and his show is sold worldwide which generates revenue for the BBC.

Clarkson is constantly offensive to plenty of people, but you won't find many on here who will have a go at him, or question his pay.

It seems there is quite a bit of schadenfreude from the British public regarding these two. People are loving watching them suffer and they are constantly justifying their thoughts because they get paid more than most.

You also can't argue they are not accountable, already one has resigned and the other is likely have people turn off his show too.

The point is, you don't have to drag it through the media, house of commons and other public auditoriums, if you don't like them, vote against them with your remote control. There is no need to waste everyones time getting worked up about it when there are greater problems in the UK right now. The BBC would soon chop them (and anyone else they employ) if people turn off.

 

Sorry, did not see the question......... I think majority of expenditure is 'wasted' ...... ready, steady, cook, Eastenders etc etc are good examples and other toss progs like that.

I enjoy film 2008 etc......

 

I just do not think that a fee should be enforced and i expect majority would feel the same. TBH, and this is just me, if the BBC asked me to give them what I think they deserved I would probably give them more than the current fee.

 

Sounds nonsensical and desparate IMO.
Admit that you are in the minority on this or at least admit to trolling

 

Why is he in the minority or trolling?