Brand/ross 'prank' - Page 12

shakermaker · 02-11-2008, 02:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by jambutty

Ross OUT!

Very mature.

jambutty · 02-11-2008, 06:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakermaker

Very mature.

Just as mature as those people who side with Brand and Ross.

It’s called voicing an opinion.

blazey · 02-11-2008, 09:09

My opinion on this is that he WOULD sue but they can hardly prove that she DIDN'T sleep with Brand

I think they were having a bit of a laugh and they just let it get out of hand. I do find Russell Brand funny but I didn't used to. I don't find Jonathan Ross funny though.

jaysay · 02-11-2008, 10:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by blazey

My opinion on this is that he WOULD sue but they can hardly prove that she DIDN'T sleep with Brand

I think they were having a bit of a laugh and they just let it get out of hand. I do find Russell Brand funny but I didn't used to. I don't find Jonathan Ross funny though.

I'm sorry blazey, but your missing the point, and as somebody who is studying law you of all people should know, its not the content of the call that they made, its the fact that they made to call at all, and on a radio program that was for public consumption, they even broke to law of the land, whether the content was true or not, it was an offence

garinda · 02-11-2008, 11:10

According to today's Sunday Times in a later call, that wasn't broadcast, Ross and Brand left a message saying they would masterbate 78 year old Andrew Sachs, as a way of 'saying sorry' for what they'd said in earlier calls.

How utterly hilarious.

I'm so glad my licence fee is being used to fund Jonathan Ross's £18 million pound B.B.C. contract.

He's a comedy genius...NOT!

maxwell silver · 02-11-2008, 11:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

According today's Sunday Times in a later call, that wasn't broadcast, Ross and Brand left a message saying they would masterbate 78 year old Andrew Sachs, as a way of 'saying sorry' for what they'd said in earlier calls.

!

Blimey if that had been broadcast the country would have had a collective heart attack,considering the furore the other messages caused.

garinda · 02-11-2008, 11:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by maxwell silver

Blimey if that had been broadcast the country would have had a collective heart attack,considering the furore the other messages caused.

Broadcast or not, I've had to sack people who've done far less offensive things than that whilst at work.

jaysay · 02-11-2008, 13:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

According to today's Sunday Times in a later call, that wasn't broadcast, Ross and Brand left a message saying they would masterbate 78 year old Andrew Sachs, as a way of 'saying sorry' for what they'd said in earlier calls.

How utterly hilarious.

I'm so glad my licence fee is being used to fund Jonathan Ross's £18 million pound B.B.C. contract.

He's a comedy genius...NOT!

The thing that is more annoying is the fact that the BBC can pay this nomark that kind of money, money that wouldn't be paid by any commercial station, to me thats a fare bigger scandle

cashman · 02-11-2008, 22:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

According to today's Sunday Times in a later call, that wasn't broadcast, Ross and Brand left a message saying they would masterbate 78 year old Andrew Sachs, as a way of 'saying sorry' for what they'd said in earlier calls.

How utterly hilarious.

I'm so glad my licence fee is being used to fund Jonathan Ross's £18 million pound B.B.C. contract.

He's a comedy genius...NOT!

that reinforces what i fer 1 already think, they aint 1 bit sorry fer the offence caused, just sorry about there own loss.

shakermaker · 02-11-2008, 22:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by West Ender

Perhaps no one complained because very few people actually listen to Russel Brand's show.

Nonsense. As I've said before why would the BBC put anyone on a highly paid contract in a primetime show when 'very few people listen to his show'?
The fact is that it's a terrible state of affairs in this country where we (the general public) let a group of faceless journalists working for a toilet-paper-worthy rag such as the Daily Mail decide what we are offended at. Everyone wants to be heard above everyone else. Everyone wants to be more offended than the last.

Wynonie Harris · 02-11-2008, 22:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakermaker

The fact is that it's a terrible state of affairs in this country where we (the general public) let a group of faceless journalists working for a toilet-paper-worthy rag such as the Daily Mail decide what we are offended at.

What a contemptuous view you have of the public, if you think that. The fact is, people have seen accounts in a number of different papers about the puerile garbage that these two left on Andrew Sach's answerphone and made up their own mind about it. And, the fact is, a large number of people don't like paying the wages of a couple of thoroughly unpleasant creeps who think it's funny to bully and humiliate a gentle 78-year old man.

cashman · 02-11-2008, 23:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wynonie Harris

What a contemptuous view you have of the public, if you think that. The fact is, people have seen accounts in a number of different papers about the puerile garbage that these two left on Andrew Sach's answerphone and made up their own mind about it. And, the fact is, a large number of people don't like paying the wages of a couple of thoroughly unpleasant creeps who think it's funny to bully and humiliate a gentle 78-year old man.

that view yer on about, seems to have drastically altered, now the guys n academic, or is that just cynical me?

shakermaker · 02-11-2008, 23:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashman

that view yer on about, seems to have drastically altered, now the guys n academic, or is that just cynical me?

Expected more from you cashman, really.

The facts speak for themselves regarding the amount of complaints made before/after press release. It really is a sad state.

cashman · 02-11-2008, 23:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakermaker

Expected more from you cashman, really.

The facts speak for themselves regarding the amount of complaints made before/after press release. It really is a sad state.

yeh would have got more from me shaker, yer musical taste saved ya,

garinda · 02-11-2008, 23:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakermaker

Nonsense. As I've said before why would the BBC put anyone on a highly paid contract in a primetime show when 'very few people listen to his show'?
The fact is that it's a terrible state of affairs in this country where we (the general public) let a group of faceless journalists working for a toilet-paper-worthy rag such as the Daily Mail decide what we are offended at. Everyone wants to be heard above everyone else. Everyone wants to be more offended than the last.

We pay our licence fee, and therefore the salaries of every B.B.C. employee, and are entitled to an opinion, whether we saw or listened to any particular broadcast or not.

I haven't personally seen the war in Iraq, but I still have an opinion on it.

Jonathan Ross isn't in the B.B.C.'s top ten rated programmes, either on television or radio. His salary far outweighs his talent, or the number of viewrs/listeners he pulls in.