Brand and woss

[Dubious Dick]

Not sure if anyone will feel that this is appropriate but I have been skeptical that these two are funny for a long time. Never one to reject a bit of smutty humour if funny, these two seem to just live on it, and very little else.

Anyway, would encourage as many as feel the same to complain to the BBC. Apparently there are now approaching 5000 complaints in about their sheer gross stupidity, which sounds like quite a lot. Maybe this is personal, but I would like to see them fired, and the money spent on them used to develop/promote some real talent.

Don't think any amount of grovelling apologies are adequate.

[Trinoc]

What's the problem? Nobody has to watch their programmes - I don't - and there are plenty of other programmes that could be objected to if the only criterion is wasting airtime (most, in fact). If they don't get the audience ratings, the programme will die, that's all.

[Matt]

I think the objextions were not to the smut alone but to it's use in a stunt wihihc invaded privacy and may be regarded as harrasment.

I find both of them funny and think that the publicity from this incident alone is well worth the huge salaries they get paid. I'd probably register my support in opposition to the complaints if I'd actually witnessed the affront in question. however I didn't so I have no further comment.

[lazerustheduck]

This solicitation for us to complain seems very 'moral minority' and is the sort of thing that is promoted by narrow minded thinkers. In fact I would class it as very un-sceptical thinking.

[Dubious Dick]

Well, as I think I did acknowledge, you might not agree and everyone is free to do as they wish with the suggestion of complaining. I am certainly not going to judge anyone on whether they do or do not take up the suggestion.

As Matt says, it is the invasion of privacy that is the big issue, and perhaps I should not have involved my personal dislike for them. However, invasion of privacy or not, it still seems extraordinarily unfunny anyway!

It may be possible to think of cases where a phone call to a hypocrite (e.g. Jeffrey Archer) may be funny.

It is not moral majority in intent. I appreciate why it might be seen that way though. This is not a Bush like 'either you are with me or against me' scenario!

I am no prude by the way. Just to clarify!

[Dubious Dick]

Sorry. Just to add that did you see that they 'joked' that Andrew Sachs might kill himself because of the 'news' that Brand had f***Ked his granddaughter?

How sick is that?

[Dubious Dick]

P.S. You can hear it on You Tube if so inclined.

[Mulder]

I sometimes catch Ross's TV show and his humour depends almost entirely on shocking people. I've always prefered wit to shock (which wears a bit thin once you're over 20) so I don't find him funny. I find his wages (the biggest shock of all) particularly unfunny.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

I don't find them particularly funny, although I used to like Ross in the past and thought Brand was interesting at first. Ross is just too sycophantic on his shows, and I know he can't really be like that.

However in this instance, I feel part of their job is knowing where the line is, and I think they crossed that line. Ok in a comedy club or whatever, say what you want, but on national radio this was just too far.

I guess I also have an inbuilt distaste to seeing the piss taken out of older people who've done nothing wrong :undecided:

[SimonC]

Subjectively speaking, I found Brand quite interesting when I first saw him. Some of his ( apparently ) spontaneous, stream-of-consciousness, metaphysical rants struck me as intelligent and creative. Like Bill Hicks on speed, rather than on blow. Ross I can take or leave. A few years ago he seemed to have found an interesting take on things, although that has waned recently. I met him once, in an informal setting, and found him very pleasant, friendly and surprisingly unassuming.

Again, it has to be a subjective matter as to whether the phone calls were funny or offensive. Personally I didn't think that they were inspired, clever or original. Just childish and a bit puerile, to be honest. Ross and Brand are both capable of very much better.

Objectively/skeptically speaking, however, don't we need to make a more rigorous assessment of what happened? Disregarding Brand's and Ross' 'celebrity status', what would happen to any of us if we had made those calls? Wouldn't we almost certainly be prosecuted for making obscene phone calls?

What is there to tangibly distinguish between the actions of 'celebrities', and those of the rest of us? Is is enough to argue that the calls were made 'for entertainment'? If so, that must set a legal precedent, surely?

If Brand did have sex with Andrew Sachs' granddaughter, and that information was revealed to him in the calls, would that not also suggest a charge that Ross and Brand potentially caused damge to his familial relationships? A case of bullying ( if such a thing exists in law ) or harrassment would probably be brought against any of us mere mortals who did the same.

And, if we did this from our place of work, as Ross and Brand did, then we'd probably face immediate dismissal.

If any of us obtained Andrew Sachs' telephone number and made those calls, could we argue that it was 'entertaining'? Would it make a difference if we had friends watching? How many friends constitute an audience?

That's as close as I can get to an objective swipe at it. I stand open, as always, to challenge and/or correction. O0

Having said all of that, I won't be complaining to the beeb. Just a bit too 'Mary Whitehouse' for my liking.

[Jack of Kent]

I concur with Simon - they could well get convicted if the CPS chose to prosecute.

See http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2006/40.html and section 127(1)(a) of the Communications Act 2003 (which all of our "commentariat" on this issue have completely missed).

Should they be prosecuted? No, though it is not a "free speech" act of which I approve.

Should they be disciplined by their employer and have their huge salaries withdrawn? Yes, especially as those salaries are in turn funded by compulsory BBC licence payments (the non-payment of which is a criminal offence).

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

It's reported a number of people have reported them to the police. That's surely not a matter for the 'man in the street' to waste police time with, although as Jack says prosecution is a possibility. Which I hope doesn't happen.

Reminds me of the football fans who shout abuse at a player all game, yet if that player makes a simple gesture towards them, run straight to the nearest policeman. Wasters.

[Croydon Bob]

From discussing with colleagues at work it seems that most people are gunning for them because they don't find either of them funny and think that Woss in particular is overpaid. The specific incident is secondary, they just want to see that obnoxious tosser who blights their TV screen sacked.

The witchhunt aspect is quite interesting isn't it? I wonder how many of the people who have complained have actually heard the offensive calls?

It all seems too much like complaining about Jerry Springer The Opera for me to want to join in. But then again I wouldn't mind seeing Woss sacked...

[Mulder]

They've been suspended which was pretty much the least the BBC could do. I think what people particularly dislike is the idea that they pay these people directly. If it was a private company you could always boycott their products if you felt strongly enough. I suspect the two will be sacked but paid off a large chunk of money. This is because of Mulder's Third Law of Economics which states "a few people will get most of the world's money, even if they do little to earn it, while the vast majority will get the dribs and drabs left over, whether the work hard or not.'

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

If I'd been earning 6 million a year, I think I could handle being sacked. And knowing I can walk into a job paying a decent whack straight away (after a couple of months to let fuss die down).

[Trinoc]

Perhaps this article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7698206.stm) will put the new "Internet witch hunt" culture in some sort of perspective.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Does the BBC have to respond to each complaint individually? Even if they can do a standard letter to everyone, it's a terrible waste of resources.

[polomint38]

It's all a fuss over nothing. It was in bad taste but only recieved 2 complaints from listeners at the time.

If the tabloid "newspapers" had not blown it out of all proportion most of us would be unaware that it had even happened. How much of the pain and anguished caused is a direct result of the incident and how much due to the blanket coverage by the media.

If sacked :cheesy:Ross:cheesy: will probably get a large cheque from the Beeb so that he doesn't sue for unfair dismissal. Then in 6 months - 1 years time they will quietly reemploy him, after all the sheep have been herded to the next scandal.

:sad:Brand:sad: has already resigned and shouldn't have.

Also all those who bring up the fact that they find them unfunny or that they are paid to much, these are irrelevant and have no place on a Skeptics forum.

If you missed it here is a completely differnt take on it

http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s4i42780

[Mulder]

Also all those who bring up the fact that they find them unfunny or that they are paid to much, these are irrelevant and have no place on a Skeptics forum.

How do you decide what is relevant on a Skeptics Forum? Indeed, WHO decides what is relevant - is it you? I think we should be told!

[lazerustheduck]

How do you decide what is relevant on a Skeptics Forum? Indeed, WHO decides what is relevant - is it you? I think we should be told!Yep even though this is a skeptical forum people are free to bring as much Woo as they want.

[Matt]

How do you decide what is relevant on a Skeptics Forum? Indeed, WHO decides what is relevant - is it you? I think we should be told!

What about a Sub Forum of the Chill Out Zone dedicated to Media: news, TV, radio.

[brodski]

How do you decide what is relevant on a Skeptics Forum? Indeed, WHO decides what is relevant - is it you? I think we should be told!

We have a group of anonymous Scandinavians, who don't read the forum (or any forum)and aren't members here who meet in secret to determine the proper nature and content of skeptical discourse here, it's how all the best forums operate.
Those sceptics who do not bow to the will of these later day Vikings will be forced to eat their porridge with sugar and not the true skeptics salt!

[Mulder]

Also all those who bring up the fact that they find them unfunny or that they are paid to much, these are irrelevant and have no place on a Skeptics forum.

If people here think Ross is unfunny and overpaid, that is NOT irrelevant. The BBC is a public service broadcaster, paid for by everyone with a TV, whether they like it or not, which probably includes most people posting here (certainly me). We are therefore 'stakeholders' (to use the current daft term) in the BBC and our opinion IS relevant. Why should we have to pay through the nose for the privilege of listening to "... juvenile and thoughtless remarks ..." that caused "... upset and distress ..." (Ross's own words)?

It really is about time the BBC stopped chasing ratings for their own sake and started concentrating on quality programming. Surely that's what public service broadcasting is for, isn't it? Perhaps a few programmes investigating many of the issues raised on these forums would be a good start.

[Matt]

We have a group of anonymous Scandinavians, who don't read the forum (or any forum)and aren't members here who meet in secret to determine the proper nature and content of skeptical discourse here, it's how all the best forums operate.
Those sceptics who do not bow to the will of these later day Vikings will be forced to eat their porridge with sugar and not the true skeptics salt!

evidence?

[polomint38]

If people here think Ross is unfunny and overpaid, that is NOT irrelevant. The BBC is a public service broadcaster, paid for by everyone with a TV, whether they like it or not, which probably includes most people posting here (certainly me). We are therefore 'stakeholders' (to use the current daft term) in the BBC and our opinion IS relevant. Why should we have to pay through the nose for the privilege of listening to "... juvenile and thoughtless remarks ..." that caused "... upset and distress ..." (Ross's own words)?

The point of there funniness and how much they earn would be more relevant if we were discussing if they should have been employed in the first place.




It really is about time the BBC stopped chasing ratings for their own sake and started concentrating on quality programming. Surely that's what public service broadcasting is for, isn't it? Perhaps a few programmes investigating many of the issues raised on these forums would be a good start.

I agree, more quality programming. But what one man calls high quality and entertaining, others think of as mindless dross. The Beeb has to cater for all fee payers and looking at the audience figures a very large number of people like Jon Ross. (3.9m - 28% share).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/oct/27/tvratings-gordonramsay (article about Gordon Ramsay but Jon Ross figures further down)



Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulder http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/showthread.php?p=46971#post46971)
How do you decide what is relevant on a Skeptics Forum? Indeed, WHO decides what is relevant - is it you? I think we should be told!

What about a Sub Forum of the Chill Out Zone dedicated to Media: news, TV, radio.


Yes you are correct must chill out in chill out zone, not be skeptical.

* Off Topic slightly *
On the subject of overpaid BBC stars, who apart from Jonathon Ross should be paid far less (or indeed not empoyed at all)

[Mongrel]

* Off Topic slightly *
On the subject of overpaid BBC stars, who apart from Jonathon Ross should be paid far less (or indeed not empoyed at all)


Russel Brand


Wait!....


nevermind

:cheesy:

[Mulder]

The point of there funniness and how much they earn would be more relevant if we were discussing if they should have been employed in the first place.

I think this row has merely brought this issue to prominence. A lot of people have resented his contract since the start.

I think the BBC must sack him because, if they don't, it will bring home to those who don't already realise it that they are being forced (if they want to watch TV) to pay his wages, whether they like him or not. The BBC can't afford to have that kind of public debate right now. It could put the whole licence fee system in doubt.

[Matt]

He's been suspended for 3 months without pay.

I would hope that the BBC spend the 1.5million on Max Clifford to repair the damage this brouhaha has caused. Max is after all the genius that convinced 30,000 people who never listen to Russel Brand that the Gothic shagmonster had irreparably damaged his client's reputation by allowing Ross to blurt that she was one of Brand's many conquests. Of course having her posing in her underwaer in every major newspaper was a complete disaster for the Satanic Slut no-one had ever heard of before and Wossy and Brand must be punished for catapulting the clearly publicity shy minx into the limelight.

[Dubious Dick]

I realise/hope that this is not personal, but guess I have some responsibility for having started this. I confess I did not hear the original broadcast live, but I did listen to it before making a complaint to the BBC, and nothing to do with Maxy C and his tabloid campaign. Admit that it was motivated to some extent by a desire to see the smugs (Brand and Ross) get some comeuppance.

Seems that there are a whole load of very funny and far from safe comedic talents out there who could knock those two into a hat any day, and do not rely on puerile smut almost exclusively, but get far less airtime because of ratings chasing and the BBCs urgent quest to please younger audiences.

Just to be absolutely clear, am great fan of great comedy/satire going back in a long line to Lenny Bruce (anyone who has not read 'How to Talk Dirty and Influence People' should try to get hold of a copy). Free speech is one thing. Stupid, useless, unfunny pisstakes on someone who appears to have done no one any harm (i.e. Sachs) is just freedom of ignorance.

Max and Georgina may have used this but they could only do so because of the poverty stricken 'joke' that the two smugs originally played and was let out by others who approved its transmission. Three Months suspension without pay is a real joke.

In this case, does it really matter how the word spread? If we had a witchhunt against genuine comedy/free speech then I would be at the barricades with the best of you. remember writing to my M.P. about the Religious Hatred Act when that threatened for example. That got watered down.

Also, the argument that lots of people do like them reminds me of a 'million flies eat poo...'. The Sun/NOW sell more than other papers. Does that make them good/worthwhile?

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

I think this row has merely brought this issue to prominence. A lot of people have resented his contract since the start.

I think the BBC must sack him because, if they don't, it will bring home to those who don't already realise it that they are being forced (if they want to watch TV) to pay his wages, whether they like him or not. The BBC can't afford to have that kind of public debate right now. It could put the whole licence fee system in doubt.

I don't think they could sack him - if they made him resign, they'd have had to pay him off.

I suspect if he'd made those comments live on air, then there'd be no question he was in a sackable position, but because it was recorded, then the editorial team is more at fault for letting it go out.

[Pebble]

I am puzzled by all the fuss. So the BBC does tabloid journalism! Big deal, look at all the programmes promoting 'woo' practices over the years. Do people really think that the BBC has standards that are significantly higher than the rest of Fleet Street?
Or is it only when it comes to sex that the great british public is motivated to act?

[Mulder]

I suspect if he'd made those comments live on air, then there'd be no question he was in a sackable position, but because it was recorded, then the editorial team is more at fault for letting it go out.

So, if a journalist got his facts completely wrong in a story, and the editors let it get published anyway, he wouldn't be sacked? Hmmm!

[Mulder]

I think responsibility is joint and equal in such situations. I admire Lesley Douglas for resigning. It was a rare case in modern society of someone doing the right thing.

[brianp]

Will Ross feel able to continue? Thompson has made it clear that any further breach of the BBC code will result in his contract being terminated. How can a man who lives by stretching the boundaries of taste continue when his every word and action from now on will be scrutinised and analysed. His many critics in the media will have field day looking for anything they can escalate into a row. I think he might well throw in the towel.

[brianp]

I don't think they could sack him - if they made him resign, they'd have had to pay him off.

Mark Thompson was quoted in the Guardian yesterday as saying:

"I believe that he fully understands the seriousness of what has happened. I have made very clear to him the central importance of the clause in his contract about not bringing the BBC into disrepute."

With such a clause in his contract - a clause he has clearly breached - the BBC certainly could have sacked him.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Mark Thompson was quoted in the Guardian yesterday as saying:

"I believe that he fully understands the seriousness of what has happened. I have made very clear to him the central importance of the clause in his contract about not bringing the BBC into disrepute."

With such a clause in his contract - a clause he has clearly breached - the BBC certainly could have sacked him.

Fair enough, but I listened to an employment law 'expert' as well, and his message was this was a very grey area that could turn into a tribunal nightmare.

I've no doubt quite a few of the senior management would really have liked to jettison him as part of this matter.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

So, if a journalist got his facts completely wrong in a story, and the editors let it get published anyway, he wouldn't be sacked? Hmmm!

I never said anything abour writers and facts, but there's editorial control in broadcasting and newsprint, and the exact responsibilities defined at each level would determine where accountability lies and in what proportion.

Ross/Brand may argue that they need a certain environment to produce their best work and editorial control is what controls whether that work is deemed to meet broadcast standards or not. Another factor which has been mentioned is how close the producers/controllers are to the talent - if they are employed directly by, or feel dominated by stars, then they may be less likely to 'cut' stuff from broadcast. I don't know but I expect these are the issues that are being looked at.

[brianp]

Fair enough, but I listened to an employment law 'expert' as well, and his message was this was a very grey area that could turn into a tribunal nightmare.

I've no doubt quite a few of the senior management would really have liked to jettison him as part of this matter.

I'm sure you're right on both counts - Ross could afford some very expensive lawyers

[Jack of Kent]

Fair enough, but I listened to an employment law 'expert' as well, and his message was this was a very grey area that could turn into a tribunal nightmare.

I've no doubt quite a few of the senior management would really have liked to jettison him as part of this matter.

From what I understand, it isn't a question of employment law.

I have read that the contract is for production services as provided by Ross's production company. If so, it would not be a matter for an employment tribunal.

To terminate such a contract under a "disrepute" clause in the circumstance could perhaps be difficult, as it it was not Ross's production company that had brought the BBC directly into repute (I think Ross was a guest on Brand's show which was provided by a separate production company). If I am right in this, the BBC would have to contend that Ross's actions had (indirectly) placed his production company in breach of the "disrupute" clause.

Lawyers: doncha love us?

[Croydon Bob]

Lawyers: doncha love us?

Since you asked... No.

;)

[Mulder]

I like lawyers, estate agents, TV celebrities, politicians, managers, salesmen, public relations executive and most of all, telephone sanitisers.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Since you asked... No.

;)

Seconded.

People should settle dispute with fists, not lawyers. Would we be worse off? Probably not...

[lazerustheduck]

Seconded.

People should settle dispute with fists, not lawyers. Would we be worse off? Probably not...Ah that reminds me of the one about war don't remember who or exactly what was said but goes along the lines of...Having two people fighting to the death is considered barbaric, having 1000's of people killing others for reasons they don't understand is patriotism.

[brianp]

Terry Wogan says Ross might not return to the BBC at all:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/3331849/Jonathan-Ross-may-not-return-to-the-BBC-claims-Terry-Wogan.html

[newatheist]

i think they r both funny to a degree. BUT THE WAGES? WTF??? they don't deserve half of that.

but if u find their show soooo offensive then might i suggest "songs of praise" instead.

and then they decide to attack mock the week, that is completely unforgivable, especially considering they were making fun of a person who lives off our taxes and whose ancestors oppressed ours.=(

[brianp]

i think they r both funny to a degree. BUT THE WAGES? WTF??? they don't deserve half of that.

but if u find their show soooo offensive then might i suggest "songs of praise" instead.

Just remember what we are complaining about. Not the language used. Not the jokes. The complaint was about two idiots on a radio show leaving messages on the answerphone of a 78 year old man a) threatening to break into his house and perform a sex-act on him, b) stating that Brand had slept with his grand-daughter, and c) expanding on that with a rhyme giving lurid details of the supposed act. They then 'joked' that Sachs might commit suicide when he got the message.

Do you think that is funny? Do you really think that is acceptable behaviour? In my opinion the BBC should have sacked those two morons and all those who OK'd the broadcast. And I really wish that Sachs would complain to the police.


and then they decide to attack mock the week, that is completely unforgivable, especially considering they were making fun of a person who lives off our taxes and whose ancestors oppressed ours.=(AFAIK one person complained about Boyle's comment on Mock the Week and the complaint got all the support it deserved; i.e. none at all. Perhaps you will explain the relevance of this - and indeed the relevance of your infantile comments on the Queen - to this thread about the scumballs Brand and Ross.