Brand/ross 'prank'

[garinda]

I don't know which Randi to be.

Newman?

Crawford?

Think I'll settle for being Randi VanWarmer.

What a laugh.

Lots of innocent fun.

No swearing, and no old folk abused...well only Jaysay.

[katex]

Originally Posted by garinda

Lots of innocent fun.

No swearing, and no old folk abused...well only Jaysay.

Ah .. but is there a bit of truth in this, what could be, Freudian slip ? That's what we all want to know .....

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by garinda

I don't know which Randi to be.

Newman?

Crawford?

Think I'll settle for being Randi VanWarmer.

What a laugh.

Lots of innocent fun.

No swearing, and no old folk abused...well only Jaysay.

Hey less of the old you young whipper snapper

[blazey]

Actually, I don't believe Brand and Ross committed any offense at all. They made a phone call that wasn't particularly threatening, it certainly couldn't have amounted to assault anyway, though perhaps harassment.

The broadcasting of it probably did breach some law, I can't say I've studied broadcasting laws, but as a pre-recorded show, it wasn't the decision of Ross or Brand, and someone somewhere made that decision and are not getting half the amount of public stick that they are getting.

A phone prank is generally a joke between very few parties. Someone decided to try and make it a national joke and I still haven't seen their name mentioned.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by blazey

Actually, I don't believe Brand and Ross committed any offense at all.

The laws relating to this area are wide-ranging, and penalties can include imprisonment. Some of the major pieces of legislation are:

• The Malicious Communications Act 1988, which lists offences relating to sending indecent, offensive or threatening letters, electronic communications or articles with the intention of causing distress or anxiety to those receiving them.
• The Protection From Harassment Act 1997, under which a person must not pursue a course of conduct
  (a) which amounts to harassment of another person, and
  (b) which he/she knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of another person.
  In a similar way is also an offence for someone to pursue a course of conduct which they know or ought to know will make someone afraid that violence will be used against them.
• The Telecommunications Act of 1984, which states that a person who:
  (a) “sends, by means of a public telecommunications system, a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character;
  or
  (b) sends by those means, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, a message that he knows to be false or persistently makes use for that purpose of a telecommunications system,”
  is guilty of an offence

[blazey]

Originally Posted by garinda

The laws relating to this area are wide-ranging, and penalties can include imprisonment. Some of the major pieces of legislation are:

• The Malicious Communications Act 1988, which lists offences relating to sending indecent, offensive or threatening letters, electronic communications or articles with the intention of causing distress or anxiety to those receiving them.
• The Protection From Harassment Act 1997, under which a person must not pursue a course of conduct
  (a) which amounts to harassment of another person, and
  (b) which he/she knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of another person.
  In a similar way is also an offence for someone to pursue a course of conduct which they know or ought to know will make someone afraid that violence will be used against them.
• The Telecommunications Act of 1984, which states that a person who:
  (a) “sends, by means of a public telecommunications system, a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character;
  or
  (b) sends by those means, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, a message that he knows to be false or persistently makes use for that purpose of a telecommunications system,”
  is guilty of an offence

Would the receiver of the calls not be the one who has to say this is indeed what they perceived the phone calls to be?

I imagine that it takes more than 4 or 5 phone calls as well otherwise we'd all be reporting telesales people for this harassment.

If the law was applied in black and white we'd just feed all the facts into a computer and see whether someone was guilty or not. Unfortunately for everyone but those in the legal profession, it doesn't work like that.

Courts would let them off lightly and it wouldn't be worth the expense.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by blazey

I imagine that it takes more than 4 or 5 phone calls

You imagine wrongly.

Ross and Brand could have been prosecuted under more than one of those laws.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by blazey

we'd all be reporting telesales people for this harassment.

Ofcom recently fined Barclaycard £50,000 for silent calling thousands of people.

It also fined Abbey National earlier in the year, and reports that other investigations were ongoing or pending.

[blazey]

Originally Posted by garinda

You imagine wrongly.

Ross and Brand could have been prosecuted under more than one of those laws.

It would have still required Sachs to say and PROVE he found it threatening or harassment or whatever. Just because the calls are made doesn't mean they automatically fall into those laws. They all have requirement of psychological distress in some form.

I very much doubt they'd have received a strong punishment under any of those laws. They are designed to protect people against terrorising and nasty phone calls, not light pranks.

I like Andrew Sachs because he's been really mature and reasonable about the whole situation rather than turning it into an even bigger mess. He's an old man, he doesn't need a pointless court case at his age, he's old enough to know to forgive and move on, which he HAS done, and people should just let it drop now.

How many cases do you know like this one where a practical joker was prosecuted?
How many do you know where a malicious phone caller was prosecuted under the very same laws?

You'll find the numbers are substantially different. Anyone who believes the law is designed to prosecute anyone who steps slightly out of line and will be used in such a way needs to open their eyes to the real world. The only damage that has been done is to their own reputations and careers. Andrew Sachs was satisfied with the apologies they gave him and his family and everybody else should probably mind their own business now and accept it too. The only thing you are doing is providing more work for the media and they're leaching off you for it.

There was once a time when Charles Dickens wrote for the media and his literary genius was shared with the public, now all we get is rubbish overblown tales of a prank phone call gone wrong and 'celebrities' on drugs or having sordid affairs and the sad thing is that millions of people are willing to PAY for it. It's just crazy.

[blazey]

Originally Posted by garinda

Ofcom recently fined Barclaycard £50,000 for silent calling thousands of people.

It also fined Abbey National earlier in the year, and reports that other investigations were ongoing or pending.

yes I can see how £50,000 must have been REALLY hard hitting to Barclays. What a harsh punishment. I bet they celebrated that result.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by blazey

...people should just let it drop now.

...everybody else should probably mind their own business now and accept it too.

...the sad thing is that millions of people are willing to PAY for it.

Sadly we have no choice about paying.

As licence fee payers we are funding the £6 million pound salary of Jonathan Ross and the like.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by garinda

As I've said three times now, come on, post the telephone number of an elderly relative of your's, and we'll arrange for someone to call them up from work, and have a real laugh with them talking about your personal life.

If for some unbelievable reason they don't get the 'joke', the person will call them back and offer to masterbate them.

The number you want called is................................?

Come on funsters!

Still no takers for the joke you could give an elderly relative of your's?

[lindsay ormerod]

I am a bit short on the elderly relative front, and the other surviving relatives all know me too well so it wouldn't be a shock to them !

[garinda]

Originally Posted by lindsay ormerod

I am a bit short on the elderly relative front, and the other surviving relatives all know me too well so it wouldn't be a shock to them !

Oh Lindsay, that sounds a bit like you're chickening out, and stopping your nearest and dearest having a great deal of fun.

[Neil]

I could dig some of mine up for you to abuse if you are that desperate rindy