Brand/ross 'prank' - Page 8

lindsay ormerod · 31-10-2008, 00:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lilly

Who the grand-daughter has slept with is irrelevant.

Are you going to do as Garinda suggested and post your Grandad or dad's phone number on here?

Will do quite happily, I have nothing to hide or be ashamed of, I am not earning my coin as an exotic dancer or selling tales to the tabloids.
This is a huge fuss over nothing, a massive publicity stunt !

shakermaker · 31-10-2008, 00:35

The Beeb wouldn't hire a person and put them on prime time radio if 'very few' people listened to them. To think so is moronic.

garinda · 31-10-2008, 00:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by lindsay ormerod

Will do quite happily, I have nothing to hide or be ashamed of, I am not earning my coin as an exotic dancer or selling tales to the tabloids.
This is a huge fuss over nothing, a massive publicity stunt !

What the young woman does is totally irrelevant, and has no bearing on the abuse her elderly grandfather received.

It's the sort of ludicrous remark some crusty old judge would say, about how a young woman was dressed provocatively, and therefore was fair game for any predatory sexual attacker.

I too found Brand's book very funny, and his presenting on B.B's Big Mouth was hilarious, however in this case I think what he did to Andrew Sachs was vile.

garinda · 31-10-2008, 01:08

Anyway Brand's old news on Accy Web.

We were split between love and hate two years ago.

http://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/f...osh-24095.html

cashman · 31-10-2008, 10:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakermaker

The Beeb wouldn't hire a person and put them on prime time radio if 'very few' people listened to them. To think so is moronic.

probably so, but more moronic are people who support those who make vile n insulting Public comments to elderly folk. seems to me like just because they have been very funny etc on occasions, this is acceptable, now that really is moronic.

jaysay · 31-10-2008, 10:53

After all this I wonder what effect this will have on other shows on both TV and Radio, to me there is no need for foul language or for that matter, personal abuse on a third person on any public broadcast body. Some of the language on say Graham Norton or Mock the Week, is close to the line of what is acceptable. If this kind of thing amuse people buy DVDs of Chubby Brown, or Jim Davidson, or go to their live shows for if you do that you know what your getting. I know that a lot of people on here have a dislike for the Mail, but today Richard Littlejohn puts some valid points across about the BBC and what we should accept from a Broadcasting Corporation which is paid for by the public and a lot of what he has said makes sense to me

garinda · 31-10-2008, 11:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaysay

After all this I wonder what effect this will have on other shows on both TV and Radio, to me there is no need for foul language or for that matter, personal abuse on a third person on any public broadcast body. Some of the language on say Graham Norton or Mock the Week, is close to the line of what is acceptable. If this kind of thing amuse people buy DVDs of Chubby Brown, or Jim Davidson, or go to their live shows for if you do that you know what your getting. I know that a lot of people on here have a dislike for the Mail, but today Richard Littlejohn puts some valid points across about the BBC and what we should accept from a Broadcasting Corporation which is paid for by the public and a lot of what he has said makes sense to me

What really aggravates me is that the B.B.C. poach 'stars', like Ross, Brand, and Norton, who all achieved success on independent channels, with such massively inflated salaries, that they wouldn't be paid by channels who aren't funded in the way the B.B.C. is.

Why aren't they themselves nurturing new talent, instead of paying vast sums of our money for Ross, Brand et al?

Gayle · 31-10-2008, 11:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

What really aggravates me is that the B.B.C. poach 'stars', like Ross, Brand, and Norton, who all achieved success on independent channels, with such massively inflated salaries, that they wouldn't be paid by channels who aren't funded in the way the B.B.C. is.

Why aren't they themselves nurturing new talent, instead of paying vast sums of our money for Ross, Brand et al?

They do nurture new talent - Peep Show, Little Britain, Catherine Tate all started on BBC 3 I think.

I agree though that the 'golden handcuffs' thing or even just the inflated salary of some of these people is out of order.

I've liked Jonathon Ross since the early 80s (although I have to admit that I'm getting a bit fed up of his talk show - it's the same every week now) and I like Russell Brand's style but I think they have crossed the line on this one.

It's taken me a while to join in with this thread because I wanted to form an opinion rather than a knee jerk reaction but in the end I have to agree with the protestors - if it hadn't have involved three famous people (four if you count the granddaughter) it would have been a police issue from day one!

garinda · 31-10-2008, 11:28

Peep Show was Channel 4, but take your point.

You could add the very funny 'Gavin and Stacey' to your list of talent nurtured by the Beeb.

Neil · 31-10-2008, 11:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gayle

They do nurture new talent - Peep Show, Little Britain, Catherine Tate all started on BBC 3 I think.

And they can do the nurturing because of "the unique way they are funded", as the BBC like to remind us. Once nurtured they can go of to the commercial stations to make the big bucks while the BBC nurture the next lot. The BBC should not be employing people on multi million pound salarys. Just let them go off to the commercial stations ( who I suspect whould then be able to offer smaller wage packages when they are not competing with the BBC ) and bring in the new talent.

I really do not like the way that the BBC competes against commercial stations. They do not need to and should not spend our tax money on competition with the commercials.

As an example. Why are Holby Blue and the Bill on at the same time? If you like that type of show you will probably like both - the BBC are forcing you to choose. They should move their program so as not to directly compete with a similar program type on ITV.

Why do they not repeatedly show their new prime time shows several times during the week on BBC3 and 4 instead of just repeating the older stuff?

Should we even have BBC3 and 4? By removing all the generic stuff that everyone else produces from BBC1 and 2 they would have enough airtime to show all there uniquely funded type stuff.

shakermaker · 31-10-2008, 11:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashman

probably so, but more moronic are people who support those who make vile n insulting Public comments to elderly folk. seems to me like just because they have been very funny etc on occasions, this is acceptable, now that really is moronic.

I don't think anyone has said their actions were acceptable, I certainly don't think so. I do think that the only person with any right to be angry at Brand & Ross is Andrew Sachs. For if it wasn't for the people that commissioned the airing of the recording, no one would have heard it except Mr Sachs and he wouldn't have been served such a public humiliation.

jaysay · 31-10-2008, 12:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

What really aggravates me is that the B.B.C. poach 'stars', like Ross, Brand, and Norton, who all achieved success on independent channels, with such massively inflated salaries, that they wouldn't be paid by channels who aren't funded in the way the B.B.C. is.

Why aren't they themselves nurturing new talent, instead of paying vast sums of our money for Ross, Brand et al?

That was one of the points raised by Littlejohn Rindi, along with scraping some of the digital channels that nobody watches, and any decent material can then be screened on the main channels instead of continual repeats

Gayle · 31-10-2008, 12:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil

And they can do the nurturing because of "the unique way they are funded", as the BBC like to remind us. Once nurtured they can go of to the commercial stations to make the big bucks while the BBC nurture the next lot. The BBC should not be employing people on multi million pound salarys. Just let them go off to the commercial stations ( who I suspect whould then be able to offer smaller wage packages when they are not competing with the BBC ) and bring in the new talent.

I really do not like the way that the BBC competes against commercial stations. They do not need to and should not spend our tax money on competition with the commercials.

I absolutely agree with you - why should the BBC be producing these shows. As was pointed out in Greg's column this morning the BBC's remit is to inform, educate and entertain. So ok, some programmes like Strictly Come Dancing definitely entertain, I suppose to some degree they also educate as it's encouraging people to dance - plus Saturday night has always been for the BBC - remember Summertime Specials?

But, I completely agree - there is no need for the sort of show that Ross and Brand do on the BBC - they should stay on Channel 4.

Also, I presume that it's because they need to prove market share and these shows get a fair share of the market - perhaps if they were allowed to remove themselves from the audience share race they might get back to doing what they should be doing.