Brand/ross 'prank' - Page 10

shakermaker · 31-10-2008, 16:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil

And what punishment should have been handed out to those that made the call by the BBC?

Suspension, along with Brand and Ross. They were all in the wrong.

andybrown_10 · 31-10-2008, 16:36

The whole affair has been blown WAY out of proportion purely down to the tabloids dictating to the public. I think two very talented comedians have been made scapegoats, as well as the radio 2 controller, because of something that originally created TWO complaints. The media then churned up a story and generated a further 18000 complaints. Shambolic. Everyone knows what Russell Brand is like, he's like Roy Chubby Brown in some respect, people know what they are like, if they are easily offended they stay away. Brand is no stranger to controversy, and I wasn't exactly shocked by what he had done, it's in his character. I think the tabloids were in the wrong in this saga, personally

jambutty · 31-10-2008, 16:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakermaker

They were acting idiotically and were most certainly in the wrong. But the buck stops with the people who allowed the recording to be aired, not Brand and Ross. Sachs would not have suffered the public humiliation that he did if not for those that commissioned the programme.

The buck stops with the perpetrators, Ross and Brand. They were the ones who made the obscene phone calls. Incidentally, was there an audience whilst the programme was being recorded?

The buck also stops with the people who allowed the recorded programme to be broadcast. Lesley fell on her sword but there is still the person who actually allowed the programme to be broadcast. That person or people should also go - for gross incompetence.

At least Brand had the decency to leave, so what does that say about Ross. Not a lot.

The DG bottled out.

Neil · 31-10-2008, 16:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakermaker

Suspension, along with Brand and Ross. They were all in the wrong.

If it is a criminal act should the presenters that made the call not be sacked?

The producers should be sacked for allowing a criminal phone call to be broadcasted

cashman · 31-10-2008, 16:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by andybrown_10

The whole affair has been blown WAY out of proportion purely down to the tabloids dictating to the public. I think two very talented comedians have been made scapegoats, as well as the radio 2 controller, because of something that originally created TWO complaints. The media then churned up a story and generated a further 18000 complaints. Shambolic. Everyone knows what Russell Brand is like, he's like Roy Chubby Brown in some respect, people know what they are like, if they are easily offended they stay away. Brand is no stranger to controversy, and I wasn't exactly shocked by what he had done, it's in his character. I think the tabloids were in the wrong in this saga, personally

oh well if its in his character its obviously ok, rubbish, chubby brown aint paid a fortune by the beeb, people actually pay if they wish to see him n thats fine.

jambutty · 31-10-2008, 16:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakermaker

The calls were wrong. We can all agree on that. However, Sachs would not have suffered the public humiliation that he did if the people who commissioned the program had binned the tapes. It was their responsibility. Anyone with any sense can see that.

Did I debate the fact that their actions were wrong? No.

Not public humiliation but what about private humiliation.

And what about the programme audience – that makes it pretty public.

andybrown_10 · 31-10-2008, 16:48

what is it about the TV license that really riles people?? If you broke it down i think maybe 0.0001p went towards Brand's & Ross' wages combined out of everyones fee. The waste goes on rubbish like BBC staff transport, and paying people to come up with "innovative" logos and other ridiculous things like the creative people who come up with ideas for programmes that are drastic. A LOT of money is collected by the BBC and not all of it is paid to Radio 2

shakermaker · 31-10-2008, 17:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by jambutty

Not public humiliation but what about private humiliation.

And what about the programme audience – that makes it pretty public.

Of course there would still have been the 'private humiliation' as you put it, but you'd be very hard pressed to find one person who would prefer the public humiliation he was subjected to by the commissioner.

There was no audience?

katex · 31-10-2008, 17:19

Just wondered legally, what exactly would they be charged with ?

Morecambe Ex Pat · 31-10-2008, 17:20

If this had been commercial radio they would have been sacked on the spot as the station would not want to upset it's advertisers. The BBC do not operate under such constraints.

When recording shows for future broadcast, some editing usually takes place and mistakes etc. are edited out. It is unlikely that a lowly engineer would dare to question the inclusion of this material, for fear of his or her job. It should however have been brought to the attention of someone in authority.

The level of talent the presenters have or don't have is not the issue, both JR and RB should both be sacked for allowing material to be broadcast which breaks the BBC's bropadcasting guidelines. Offensive material broadcast on live shows could be classed as accidental but there is no excuse for an offensive recording being broadcast. The length of time took to reach a decision by the lily livered bosses on the matter was ridiculous. If I was guilty of misconduct in my work place, I would be marched out of the building and my personal belongings would be posted to me.

MargaretR · 31-10-2008, 17:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by katex

Just wondered legally, what exactly would they be charged with ?

Found this-
Under the Communications Act 2003, it is an offence to send over a public electronic communications network a message that is "grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character".

here - Lords rule on 'grossly offensive' phone calls | OUT-LAW.COM

katex · 31-10-2008, 17:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by MargaretR

Found this-
Under the Communications Act 2003, it is an offence to send over a public electronic communications network a message that is "grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character".

here - Lords rule on 'grossly offensive' phone calls | OUT-LAW.COM

Thanks .. knew you would find it.

Guess it fits the first and second then at least .. what do you think about the others ?
Just that you associate the other descriptions as 'dirty phone calls' or threatening you with harm.

jaysay · 31-10-2008, 17:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Margaret

Found this-
Under the Communications Act 2003, it is an offence to send over a public electronic communications network a message that is "grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character".

here - Lords rule on 'grossly offensive' phone calls | OUT-LAW.COM

Margaret, I think that says it all, and those responsible for putting out the program are as culpable as Ross and Brand, Brand hands his tickets in so does the controller,and Ross gets a slap on the wrists, but he is just as much to blame as the other two and should have gone of his own volition and if not they should have sacked him

Morecambe Ex Pat · 31-10-2008, 17:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by katex

Just wondered legally, what exactly would they be charged with ?

There are a number of offences involving the making of malicious or offensive phone calls under the Telecommunications Offences Act but no action can be taken unless the recipient makes a formal complaint.

katex · 31-10-2008, 17:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morecambe Ex Pat

There are a number of offences involving the making of malicious or offensive phone calls under the Telecommunications Offences Act but no action can be taken unless the recipient makes a formal complaint.

Guess just reflects what a lovely man Andrew Sachs is then.