|
I thought the show was very very funny indeed :D :D
I hope some other radio station snaps Brand up quickly! |
Originally Posted by TelBoy
(Post 8231641)
What will the 18,001st complainant say that hasn't been said already, exactly? The point has been made now, surely?? I don't understand people sometimes. Well, most of the time actually.
Ross is roundly detested; now we have a chance to make that known to the BBC - few people will want to listen to a predictable piece of gratuitously offensive rubbish; nor do they need to; they already know they dislike Ross's puerile trash. So the complaints become the vehicle of expressing public disgust at the abysmally low standards the BBC inflict on us. |
Originally Posted by unclebuck
(Post 8233391)
I suspect a lot of the complaints are about the 'brands' :Brand is appalling whereas Ross is a vain and talentless waste of space - who has been foisted on to Radio 2 as part of an effort to move the Radio 2 demography from middle/old aged to 'youf'.
Ross is roundly detested; now we have a chance to make that known to the BBC - few people will want to listen to a predictable piece of gratuitously offensive rubbish; nor do they need to; they already know they dislike Ross's puerile trash. So the complaints become the vehicle of expressing public disgust at the abysmally low standards the BBC inflict on us. I like both Ross and Brand, the viewing/listening figures prove im not alone |
Originally Posted by unclebuck
(Post 8233391)
I suspect a lot of the complaints are about the 'brands' :Brand is appalling whereas Ross is a vain and talentless waste of space - who has been foisted on to Radio 2 as part of an effort to move the Radio 2 demography from middle/old aged to 'youf'.
Ross is roundly detested; now we have a chance to make that known to the BBC - few people will want to listen to a predictable piece of gratuitously offensive rubbish; nor do they need to; they already know they dislike Ross's puerile trash. So the complaints become the vehicle of expressing public disgust at the abysmally low standards the BBC inflict on us. 30,000 people have 'complained' That leaves around 40million plus adults in the UK who haven't. Not sure what we can gauge from this really except that the fact something as trivial as this can become headline news for 2 days and all the other surrounding media attention shows how stupid and shallow this country and many of its inhabitants have become. |
Originally Posted by unclebuck
(Post 8233391)
I suspect a lot of the complaints are about the 'brands' :Brand is appalling whereas Ross is a vain and talentless waste of space - who has been foisted on to Radio 2 as part of an effort to move the Radio 2 demography from middle/old aged to 'youf'.
Ross is roundly detested; now we have a chance to make that known to the BBC - few people will want to listen to a predictable piece of gratuitously offensive rubbish; nor do they need to; they already know they dislike Ross's puerile trash. So the complaints become the vehicle of expressing public disgust at the abysmally low standards the BBC inflict on us. I think we need to start complaining about the fact Brand has been forced to resign! |
Originally Posted by DazW
(Post 8232778)
At least it's bought all the Mary Whitehouse brigade out of the sn woodwork ;)
Anyone who cannot understand the shameful standard of behaviour of leaving lewd and very offensive phone calls on an elderly man's answerphone in full public hearing, especially when the man concerned had done nothing to deserve it, must have been right at the back of the queue when they were handing out decent unselfish behaviour and thought for others apart from themselves! Les :( |
Originally Posted by Leslie
(Post 8236014)
Anyone who cannot understand the shameful standard of behaviour of leaving lewd and very offensive phone calls on an elderly man's answerphone in full public hearing, especially when the man concerned had done nothing to deserve it, must have been right at the back of the queue when they were handing out decent unselfish behaviour and thought for others apart from themselves! Les :( :D:D |
Brand is as funny as a leper in a wind tunnel. I´m glad the **** has resigned.
|
Originally Posted by kingofturds
(Post 8237192)
Brand is as funny as a leper in a wind tunnel. I´m glad the **** has resigned.
|
I had never watched anything of Brands on TV until this blew up. Decided to record and watch his Ponderland the other night.
In all honesty - I laughed out several times, sorry and all that but I thought he was honestly very very funny indeed. I'd be surprised if his live shows don't sell out in microseconds for the forseeable future. The wife has an easy hit for Xmas presents this year. Brand DVD box set. |
Originally Posted by Bubba po
(Post 8237122)
Les |
Brand is a compete unfunny **** in my opinion but I have never struggled with the idea of changing channel when he comes on TV or radio, I mean the only thing I have ever known him to be on is Big brother and if you watch that rubbish then you need far more help than the Daily Mail can offer.
I would till love to know who actually can be arsed to phone up and complain about radio s hows? Did any scooby netters compain ? Who actually do you ring or write to the BBC ? Some independant broadcasting complaints comission ? Much as I think what Brand and Ross did was very wrong I read the Daily Mail yesterday and their headlines 'Daily Mail Triumphs over sick BBC ' and 'Britan saved from disaster thanks to Daily Mail intervention' almost made me hope someone would do it again just to piss the Daily Mail off. |
About this "lewd" joke situation, I would have sacked them both ages ago for producing cr@p humour (???), anyway with that show! IMO It's not just about the joke being "lewd", it's just so unfunny that it wouldn't make a bird fart; never mind a human going LMFAO :freak3: And the pair were finding it soooooooo hilarious, going on and on and on with their loudmouths! Christ! :cuckoo: The show was not even funny!
Anyway, they have been axed due to the "lewd" phonecall to the veteran about his GD. So, if that has become excuse for them to be sacked, jolly good :thumb: I don't mind Ross in some TV shows. I think he is a good awards presenter too, with his spontanious jokes producing abilities and his comic frog eyes :D He will be back on other shows, on other stations. Brand can change his career, and become a hairdresser IMO. |
This thread is full of people confusing their own opinion with definitive fact.
|
Originally Posted by GC8
(Post 8238295)
This thread is full of people confusing their own opinion with definitive fact.
Now how about this from the Daily Mail:
Originally Posted by The Daily Mail
This affair has always been about more than one show, tasteless as it was.
Brand and Ross's behaviour represented a tipping point in public tolerance of the smutty, exploitative tat masquerading as edgy humour that has been insidiously creeping into the BBC for years. If Jonathan Ross slinks back in three months' time to our screens as if absolved, the public will have been betrayed. |
This as only got to the level of complaints it's at because,the radio show's broadcast as been shoved in everyone's face by the media.Remember out of the original dedicated listeners,only two complained.So now we got thousands people complaining,and the majority of them,don't or have never listened to the radio show before..And what about Sachs himself,he said he accepts all apologies,i dare say Sachs hasn't been loosing any sleep over it.
|
Originally Posted by f1_fan
(Post 8239171)
It certainly is, mind you if people didn't do that then most Internet forums would close down overnight ;) :D
Now how about this from the Daily Mail: Do people seriously read this tosh and agree with it? The Daily Mail are no more than hypocrites selling newspapers on the back of taking the moral high ground over stories such as this but making sure that every little sordid detail is serialised over several weeks of publication. Les |
Originally Posted by Leslie
(Post 8239979)
Well I have not read that before you posted it, but I will say that it is a pretty accurate summation of the situation.
Les For starters and as I already said the Daily Mail like most of their ilk are just hypocrites so let's leave them out of it as they aren't worth wasting a discussion on. However as to what they said if they had their way the BBC would still be stuck back in the dark ages. Times change and the BBC is trying to cater for many and diverse tastes as it should do. Just because you or I don't like Russell Brand doesn't mean others don't. Sure he and Ross may have overstepped the mark a little here but until the media and the moral high ground brigade got a hold of it there were virtually no complaints. Thing is the radio like the TV has an off button so why not use it. I cannot stand Coronation St or any soaps so I simply don't watch them, how easy is that? On top of that Andrew Sachs himself didn't seem too upset over this whole affair and accepted their apology even though he never asked for one. That really should have been an end to it. As for the 'exploitative tat masquerading as edgy humour that has been insidiously creeping into the BBC for years' comment well they were saying much the same thing in the 70s when they had good old Mary Whitehouse to fall back on. No one has died as aresult of the decline in the BBC and it's still here some 30 years on so maybe it's time for them to change the record so as to speak. We are all different but give me Jonathan Ross over the likes of Wogan and Steve Wright any day of the week. Sure they are unlikely to offend, but also unlikely to do anything remotely original or entertaining either. Now if the BBC wasn't funded by virtually compulsory taxation I wouldn't even feel entitled to make that comment, but saldy it is, but that is a whole other debate. At the end of the day this is a storm in a teacup and if you want to climb on the BBC in declining standards shocker bandwagon that is up to you. I would much rather all the time and effort that was given over to this be better spent dealing with serious issues in this country rather than a couple of radio presenters getting a little bit carried away as that is what this boils down to and it is nothing more than that!! |
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
|
Originally Posted by scoobynutta555
(Post 8240180)
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
|
Sorry, can't be bothered reading it. :D
|
Interesting to note, however, that 'stars' at the BBC will be paid less :)
|
Originally Posted by scoobynutta555
(Post 8240223)
Sorry, can't be bothered reading it. :D
|
Originally Posted by scoobynutta555
(Post 8240223)
Sorry, can't be bothered reading it. :D
|
Originally Posted by f1_fan
(Post 8240037)
Would you? Well I wouldn't.
For starters and as I already said the Daily Mail like most of their ilk are just hypocrites so let's leave them out of it as they aren't worth wasting a discussion on. However as to what they said if they had their way the BBC would still be stuck back in the dark ages. Times change and the BBC is trying to cater for many and diverse tastes as it should do. Just because you or I don't like Russell Brand doesn't mean others don't. Sure he and Ross may have overstepped the mark a little here but until the media and the moral high ground brigade got a hold of it there were virtually no complaints. Thing is the radio like the TV has an off button so why not use it. I cannot stand Coronation St or any soaps so I simply don't watch them, how easy is that? On top of that Andrew Sachs himself didn't seem too upset over this whole affair and accepted their apology even though he never asked for one. That really should have been an end to it. As for the 'exploitative tat masquerading as edgy humour that has been insidiously creeping into the BBC for years' comment well they were saying much the same thing in the 70s when they had good old Mary Whitehouse to fall back on. No one has died as aresult of the decline in the BBC and it's still here some 30 years on so maybe it's time for them to change the record so as to speak. We are all different but give me Jonathan Ross over the likes of Wogan and Steve Wright any day of the week. Sure they are unlikely to offend, but also unlikely to do anything remotely original or entertaining either. Now if the BBC wasn't funded by virtually compulsory taxation I wouldn't even feel entitled to make that comment, but saldy it is, but that is a whole other debate. At the end of the day this is a storm in a teacup and if you want to climb on the BBC in declining standards shocker bandwagon that is up to you. I would much rather all the time and effort that was given over to this be better spent dealing with serious issues in this country rather than a couple of radio presenters getting a little bit carried away as that is what this boils down to and it is nothing more than that!! I have no idea whether the Mail is hypocritical but I think you have lost sight of the real matter in question. What they did was the worst kind of puerile humour and they were part of a shameful attempt to denigrate the character by association of a man who had done nothing wrong-to them or anyone else. Do you honestly think that was a worthy attempt at general entertainment? Do you think that it is a sparkling representation of their characters? To say that they were a little carried away is completely understated. They took advantage of using a public broadcast to do this and in all truth, there is nothing funny or entertaining about it in any way. What do you think should be allowed on TV or the radio than? Do you think that no holds should be barred. Its all very well saying there is an on/off button but such mindlessly stupid behaviour will always occur before one can switch it off and also it trancends any standards you can quote of decent behaviour. Standards of morality have slipped very badly in recent years. This sort of thing if allowed to occur again will send them further down the hill to where recovery is impossible. People should feel that they can switch on their tv or radios without having to experience gutter language or such disgraceful behaviour. Les |
Originally Posted by Bubba po
(Post 8237122)
Les, old chap- you walked right into that one! ;) The real irony with the whole situation of course is that the "moral guardians" at the Mail have, by virtue of their little campaign, brought to the attention of the nation the antics of a member of the "satanic sluts" and an alleged (anyone know if she's admitted to it?) BDSM porn star! who would have otherwise been condemned to obsecurity! And for that, I thank them! :thumb: I just feel sorry for her poor dad and graddad, who now have to see her with her norks out performing with the satanic sluts splashed all over the national press and internet..... Something tells me this will come up after a few drinks at the family xmas dinner! ;) :D |
I read somewhere that they didnt even really leave the messages on his VM. They just recorded the sound of his greeting and played it and then did their "sketch" after it.
|
Originally Posted by Leslie
(Post 8241862)
Believe it or not, I had guessed just how you feel about it all!
I have no idea whether the Mail is hypochritical but I think you have lost sight of the real matter in question. What they did was the worst kind of puerile humour and they were part of a shameful attempt to denigrate the character by association of a man who had done nothing wrong-to them or anyone else. Do you honestly think that was a worthy attempt at general entertainment? Do you think that it is a sparkling representation of their characters? To say that they were a little carried away is completely understated. They took advantage of using a public broadcast to do this and in all truth, there is nothing funny or entertaining about it in any way. What do you think should be allowed on TV or the radio than? Do you think that no holds should be barred. Its all very well saying there is an on/off button but such mindlessly stupid behaviour will always occur before one can switch it off and also it trancends any standards you can quote of decent behaviour. Standards of morality have slipped very badly in recent years. This sort of thing if allowed to occur again will send them further down the hill to where recovery is impossible. People should feel that they can switch on their tv or radios without having to experience gutter language or such disgraceful behaviour. Les Two radio presenters overstepped the mark and then apologised to the target of their 'humour' who didn't really seem to want an apology in the first place. The way you paint it you would think people had died as a result. Of course there should not be an anything goes policy, but this is hardly a case of anything goes nor is it worthy of all the coverage the net curtain twitching puritans at The Daily Mail have made sure it has had. I also note that on TG last night Clarkson made two references to lorry drivers murdering prostitutes yet we don't have people calling for his head over it. Maybe we should call up The Daily Mail eh? |
Originally Posted by f1_fan
(Post 8242151)
Crikey man get a grip.
Two radio presenters overstepped the mark and then apologised to the target of their 'humour' who didn't really seem to want an apology in the first place. The way you paint it you would think people had died as a result. Of course there should not be an anything goes policy, but this is hardly a case of anything goes nor is it worthy of all the coverage the net curtain twitching puritans at The Daily Mail have made sure it has had. I also note that on TG last night Clarkson made two references to lorry drivers murdering prostitutes yet we don't have people calling for his head over it. Maybe we should call up The Daily Mail eh? I stand by what I said, that is my personal opinion just in the same way you are entitled to yours. We obviously have different standards. You ducked my question by the way. Les |
Popularity ratings anyone? It's all bullcrap, esp from the BBC!
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:44 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands