Brand/ross 'prank' - Page 2

Lilly · 27-10-2008, 22:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by West Ender

I agree with Bernadette. When you defend something like this, you should always ask yourself if you'd be happy if it was done to you. Would you like to have lewd comments about your child or grandchild broadcast? I know if it happened to me I'd be bloody angry but maybe you'd think it was just a "prank".

Give the lads a break? Jonathan Ross has children of his own. He should know better.

Judging by the names he gave those children he's obviously not on our wavelength.

Who the hell calls their kids Betty Kitten, Harvey Kirby and Honey Kinny?

MargaretR · 27-10-2008, 22:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lilly

Judging by the names he gave those children he's obviously not on our wavelength.

Who the hell calls their kids Betty Kitten, Harvey Kirby and Honey Kinny?

notice there are no Rs or wubbleUs in those names

ps just noticed one R -how will he pronounce that -Harwey? mind boggles

West Ender · 27-10-2008, 22:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lilly

Judging by the names he gave those children he's obviously not on our wavelength.

Who the hell calls their kids Betty Kitten, Harvey Kirby and Honey Kinny?

On reflection - you have a very good point.

Who would call their 1st child after a cat, their 2nd after a 6' white rabbit and their youngest after a not-very-palatable, continental soft drink?

Benipete · 27-10-2008, 23:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by MargaretR

Both are very overpaid and overrated.
This gives them the impression that they can get away with such very bad taste, but I hope that the bad publicity they have had since will bring them down off their pedestals.
and maybe down the payscale

I may be wrong but I think Ross is paid about£7million a year.I demand a refund from the BBC.

BERNADETTE · 27-10-2008, 23:04

It is just like somebody ringing my Mum and telling her details of my kids sex life. Not funny in the least!!!

jambutty · 27-10-2008, 23:06

Sack them both.

garinda · 28-10-2008, 00:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by flashytart

RIGHT, we've all pulled stupid pranks in our lives (if you havent then you are boring) these two are only being reprimanded because they are in the limelight, give the lads a break, people have done far worse than this and got away with it

Yes but unlike Ross we don't get £17 million pounds of licence fee payers money for doing it.

What they did was nasty, and if I were in charge they'd be sacked, to curb the arrogance that comes with being paid such obscene salaries.

Benipete · 28-10-2008, 00:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

Yes but unlike Ross we don't get £17 million pounds of licence fee payers money for doing it.

What they did was nasty, and if I were in charge they'd be sacked, to curb the arrogance that comes with being paid such obscene salaries.

Well It appears that it was pre-recorded so what the hell where the producers doing.Not that it excuses the behavior of the two R's - holes.

keetah992000 · 28-10-2008, 00:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by jambutty

Sack them both.

Do you not mean Sach them both ?

mothernature · 28-10-2008, 00:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by flashytart

RIGHT, we've all pulled stupid pranks in our lives (if you havent then you are boring) these two are only being reprimanded because they are in the limelight, give the lads a break, people have done far worse than this and got away with it

This isn't what I would call a stupid prank. Surely there is a law against malicious phone calls like the ones they made. Maybe they should be prosecuted for their prank. Why are these types of programmes allowed to be made anyway. Just tells me that the moral standards of the viewing public have suck very low if this is what they call entertainment.

garinda · 28-10-2008, 00:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by mothernature

This isn't what I would call a stupid prank. Surely there is a law against malicious phone calls like the ones they made. Maybe they should be prosecuted for their prank.

That was my first reaction, that it's illegal to make malicous calls.

I agree about the producers liability. Which ever bigwig at the Beeb, who thought this recorded programme was suitable to be broadcast, should also be fired.

Benipete · 28-10-2008, 02:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

That was my first reaction, that it's illegal to make malicous calls.

I agree about the producers liability. Which ever bigwig at the Beeb, who thought this recorded programme was suitable to be broadcast, should also be fired.

The only defense for these two idiots is that it was recorded, that aside I would still give them the boot along with the production team and their pusher.

It's a thin white line.

jaysay · 28-10-2008, 10:18

Is anybody really surprised at these two morons, as Rindi said £17 million of our money to pay this twerp (for want of a better word) and what actually does he do to earn that much money anyway, is it any wonder that we see repeat after repeat on the Beeb. I have never understood why he (Ross) as to come out with four letter words on his Friday night show, its not cleaver, okay its after the so called water shed, but that's no excuse. I remember he was on the Charlotte Church show on 4 and it was just one stream of four letter expletives from start to finish. There's a time and place for that language, barrack room and the building site, but not on TV

archiveuk · 28-10-2008, 19:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benipete

I may be wrong but I think Ross is paid about£7million a year.I demand a refund from the BBC.

In my opinion humour is only funny if it has no victims. From tonights reports it seems that Andrew Sachs asked for the prank to be dropped from the "show".

I understood Ross was on a 3 yr contract and his pay (for both Tv & Radio work) was nearer to 17 million....

I think the buffoons who hired him should be sacked...

MargaretR · 28-10-2008, 19:48

12,000 emails complaining could mean the end of these two on the BBC

I won't miss them