Bullets 'n' Babes

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/broadcastin ... -ross.html

If we behaved like J. Ross and R. Brand in our jobs we would be sacked. I know their humour is below the belt sometimes but they went too far this time and offended a lot of people (not least Andrew). I think what they did is totally unacceptable, ringing up an old man and joking about sleeping with his relatives isnt funny
I noticed though that after the show on Radio 2, there were just 2 complaints (and that was due to swearing), and this grows to 10,000 when the story appears in the Mail?
Hmmm.

If I rang up a 78 year old man and left a series of messages telling him I'd "fucked" his grandaughter and suggested it might cause him to commit suicide I would have the coppers banging on my door. If I did it at work I'd be sacked.

This filth is what the BBC waste taxpayers money on. Ross is an immature moron with a monsterous ego and obnoxious personality. Brand is a disgusting ex-junkie whom for some inexplicible reason has been branded "sexy" (if I didn't wash or shave for three years I might look almost as bad); presumably by people who've had their eyes plucked out my Ravens.

Both of them should get the boot. Let's see how funny they find that joke.

Calm down Mark. You're so right wing it's scary. I sometimes wonder if you walk around in Victorian clothes.

They stepped over the line of what's funny an are being stiffly dealt with. It's been a long time coming for Ross in particular. We expect comedians to get close to the line of decency, more so than other professions. If you dislike it don't watch it. Like I said they took it too far this time though and are being dealt with. There's no reason to get all irate they're being disciplined.

I happen to think both are funny, especially Ross but do think he needed taking down a peg or two.

I noticed though that after the show on Radio 2, there were just 2 complaints (and that was due to swearing), and this grows to 10,000 when the story appears in the Mail?

I imagine this would've happened anyway. Andrew Sachs complained to The BBC. What I find as shocking is that someone decided it was suitable to air. This wasn't a live broadcast but it was pre-recorded.

As to their characters. Ross "can" be witty and has good comedy timing. Brand is a very articulate person and again has good comedy timing, he too can be witty. That is what makes him sexy to women or so I'd imagine.

What does being an ex-junkie got to do with anything? He's been on record saying it's bad for you and that's in his path. Where did you get the idea he doesn't wash? Is there something wrong with not shaving? So he has a beard, oh dear he must be filth.

Markgway wrote:Both of them should get the boot.

Why? Because you dislike them. They're both very popular. I'd miss Jonathan Ross on Friday night. It's usually very good.

I would like to see an interviewer to replace Parky though too.

The person who put such an item on air and who decided to broadcast that "joke" should be sacked. What Brand and Ross did is unacceptable in the eyes of the law.

grim_tales wrote:What Brand and Ross did is unacceptable in the eyes of the law.

Possibly true but extreme.

grim_tales wrote:The person who put such an item on air and who decided to broadcast that "joke" should be sacked.

Severely reprimanded yes, sacked no. I doubt "they" did it to be malicious and as such sacking would be extreme. You cannot sack someone whenever they do something wrong.

bradavon wrote:Calm down Mark. You're so right wing it's scary. I sometimes wonder if you walk around in Victorian clothes.

What?? Having standards is "right wing" is it? If you say so...

They stepped over the line of what's funny an are being stiffly dealt with.

Yes - they've forced Brand to quit.

Ross will be a tougher proposition.

If you dislike it don't watch it.

A. It was a radio show.

B. Did Andrew Sachs have the chance not to be a part of the sketch? No. When he refused to give his permission they ignored him and broadcast it anyways. Maybe you think leaving obscene messages on answering machines is funny? I don't. I'm a grown-up.

I happen to think both are funny

We've already established you have no taste. Brand is a wart who wouldn't have gotten on TV ten years ago and Ross has gotten increasingly crude and self-aggrandising in the last few years.

What I find as shocking is that someone decided it was suitable to air. This wasn't a live broadcast but it was pre-recorded.

Because the BBC producers are just as bad as the presenters. They only apologise when they get caught. If no one had said anything they'd have been well pleased with themselves. Aren't we funny picking on an old man? Let's see them try that shit with Vinnie Jones. "Vinnie, I fucked your daughter". let's see what happens...

That is what makes him sexy to women or so I'd imagine.

I'm witty too so does that mean I can stop bathing and grow hair like a troll? Maybe I can get my own show? But I'll have to tell the BBC I'm an ex-junkie else I'll have no cred.

Why? Because you dislike them. They're both very popular. I'd miss Jonathan Ross on Friday night. It's usually very good.

My like or dislike is irrelevent. They went far across the line and the BBC have to set standards. Is your liking for them blinding your judgement? Seems so.

I would like to see an interviewer to replace Parky though too.

The problem with Parky is that he's a bit crap and no one has the guts to admit it.

bradavon wrote:

grim_tales wrote:What Brand and Ross did is unacceptable in the eyes of the law.

Possibly true but extreme.

Brad, can I have your phone number please?

I doubt "they" did it to be malicious and as such sacking would be extreme.

Phoning a pensioner up and suggesting he might kill himself because Brand fucked his granddaughter isn't malicious? What's malicious to you? A death threat?

You cannot sack someone whenever they do something wrong.

99.9% of employers seem to be under a different impression but thanks for clearing that up.

Markgway wrote:What?? Having standards is "right wing" is it? If you say so...

Standards is a very subjective word. I'm sure Sarah Palin thinks she has standards. I think she's a completely dangerous loon. You should ask her around for tea. You'd probably get along like wildfire.

Markgway wrote:Yes - they've forced Brand to quit.

That is a shame. I didn't listen to it but I'm sure that was OTT.

Markgway wrote:B. Did Andrew Sachs have the chance not to be a part of the sketch? No. When he refused to give his permission they ignored him and broadcast it anyways.

I heard he couldn't attend, not that he refused anything. Besides that's not Brand or Ross's fault.

Markgway wrote:Maybe you think leaving obscene messages on answering machines is funny? I don't. I'm a grown-up.

And that isn't pretentious. Try reading what I said. Do I need to repeat myself? Clearly I do. I said they crossed the line and should be severely dealt with.

Markgway wrote:Brand is a wart who wouldn't have gotten on TV ten years ago

Many talented people on TV today wouldn't have, your point? MTV didn't play any Black music in the 80s, it didn't mean there was lack of talent.

Markgway wrote:and Ross has gotten increasingly crude and self-aggrandising in the last few years.

He actually used to be much worse. While still overly crude at times his TV show used to be worse.

Markgway wrote:They only apologise when they get caught.

How can you apologise before doing something wrong? Sachs complained. They apologised, standard practise.

Markgway wrote:If no one had said anything they'd have been well pleased with themselves.

I doubt it. It wasn't the two people who complained that caused the apology it was the one who it was directed at complaining to them.

Markgway wrote:I'm witty too

Oh believe me you're not.

Markgway wrote:so does that mean I can stop bathing and grow hair like a troll?

You've not said where you've got your information from that he doesn't wash or why having facial hair is disgusting? Lots of men have facial hair, big deal.

Markgway wrote:My like or dislike is irrelevent. They went far across the line and the BBC have to set standards. Is your liking for them blinding your judgement? Seems so.

Again reading my words! I said they should be severely dealt with, just not that should be fired.

Jeez if everyone was fired the first time they did something wrong we'd all be fired, except you of course. It's not like they sexually harassed anyone. The right thing to do (as is "already" happening) is to suspend them, find out all the facts then take appropriate action.

Your opinion of them is clearly a factor anyway, if it was truly irrelevant why bring up Brand's hygiene and facial hair?

Markgway wrote:The problem with Parky is that he's a bit crap and no one has the guts to admit it.

I don't think he was perfect but he was the "only" interviewer who actually let interviewees actually talk. He mostly played it completely straight.

Markgway wrote:Phoning a pensioner up and suggesting he might kill himself because Brand fucked his granddaughter isn't malicious? What's malicious to you? A death threat?

Go buy some fucking glasses. I was talking about the people who allowed it to be aired. I doubt they did it to be malicious. They probably allowed it to be aired as they thought it was funny but that's not immediately being malicious.

Markgway wrote:99.9% of employers seem to be under a different impression but thanks for clearing that up.

Only in your right wing deranged mind.

You cannot just fire someone for the fun of it. You have to have very justifiable reasons and usually give them a warning first.

I've just listened to the radio show in question, and I think it's fine and that people should be bothered about more important things going on.

I just don't understand why people actually like Russel Brand!! I don't find him even remotely funny! What is his appeal?!?! And I definitely don't get hte sex appeal aspect...

I'm glad he has quit, as the less I see and hear of him, the better.

Russell Brand is one of my favourite comedians ever

degeneration wrote:I'm glad he has quit, as the less I see and hear of him, the better.

I wouldn't count on that.

Ross/Brand made obscene phonecalls which is very unaccepatable. However the granddaughter isnt exactly whiter than white, she's a member of a group called The Satanic Sl*ts or something like that, I read it was done to get publicity for the granddaughter
She actually DID sleep with Brand

She even did an interview with The Sun. I bet she got paid a nice sum for that. She came across as pompous.

Personally I find it more offensive that they called a personal phone call live on air than what they actually said. If they'd done it off air I'd have said meh! it's unacceptable but it's a private conversation, which IMO is very different.

I also think the whole thing has been blown out of all proportions. I hope Ross doesn't get fired. I'd be surprised if he does but you never know. I'm certainly not one of the people who asked for their blood.

Me neither per se but you can't deny what they did is very wrong.

bradavon wrote:Standards is a very subjective word. I'm sure Sarah Palin thinks she has standards. I think she's a completely dangerous loon. You should ask her around for tea. You'd probably get along like wildfire.

I wouldn't vote for Sarah Palin if you paid me. I'm backing Obama all the way and will be staying up next week to make sure he gets elected. I've no idea what she's got to do with this thread though other than giving you another opportunity to take a misguided pot shot at the right. Why you think I'd get along with her I've no idea. I guess to you you're either a dyed-in-the-wool liberal with a capital L or you're a gun-totting jingoistic fanatic. No middle ground, eh? And the way you associate having standards with being right wing seems like a compliment to me. Might want to rethink your political strategy.

I didn't listen to it but I'm sure that was OTT.

You mean you haven't even heard it and yet you're spouting all this nonsense?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zrUZ2N8x2GI

I heard he couldn't attend, not that he refused anything. Besides that's not Brand or Ross's fault.

They're grown men who have to take account of themselves. They knew exactly what they were doing. These presenters aren't stupid. There was no accident in what they said. The show was edited before it was put out. Presenters and producers should share the blame.

I said they crossed the line and should be severely dealt with.

And they are. That's fine. I don't want them shot. But in any job if you do something deliberately wrong you have to face the consequences. That's life. I don't see why you're getting so excitible defending these vulgar millionaires. I think it's obvious that Ross has let Brand take the heat in the hopes of defelecting it from himself. Very noble.

Many talented people on TV today wouldn't have, your point?

Like who?

MTV didn't play any Black music in the 80s, it didn't mean there was lack of talent.

WTF has that got to do with this situation?

He actually used to be much worse. While still overly crude at times his TV show used to be worse.

I'm not a fan so I'll defer to you on that.

How can you apologise before doing something wrong?

I wasn't being literal with that comment.

Oh believe me you're not.

Yes I am Brad - stop being jealous. You're the only person on this forum who doesn't know how to use a signature quote for comic effect.

You've not said where you've got your information from that he doesn't wash or why having facial hair is disgusting? Lots of men have facial hair, big deal.

Jesus Christ. I said he LOOKS like he doesn't wash. He may shower three times a day for all I know. I don't care. I'm talking about appearence. Having facial hair isn't disgusting... but his is a mess.

I said they should be severely dealt with, just not that should be fired.

How would you punish them? Lines on a blackboard? Tell you what, Brad, go into your work tomorrow and phone up a customer and tell them you fucked their granddaughter. I'm sure it'll result in you having more time to spend on these forums.

Jeez if everyone was fired the first time they did something wrong we'd all be fired, except you of course.

I've never done anything like that so I wouldn't know.

It's not like they sexually harassed anyone.

So it's only an issue if they sexually harrass? Regular harrassment is OK? I see.

Your opinion of them is clearly a factor anyway, if it was truly irrelevant why bring up Brand's hygiene and facial hair?

Because I'm not surprised. You see what Brand is like. You hear him. You know his background. Yet the BBC hire him. They're to blame more than anyone in this.

I don't think he was perfect but he was the "only" interviewer who actually let interviewees actually talk. He mostly played it completely straight.

He had no personality. Maybe that was his skill... making the subjects look interesting? I don't have any real dislike of Parkinson. Just don't see the fuss.

I doubt they did it to be malicious. They probably allowed it to be aired as they thought it was funny but that's not immediately being malicious.

At best that shows terrible lack of judgement.

Only in your right wing deranged mind.

Ha-Ha! Again with the right-wing shit. You'll soon have people believing it. Just as well it doesn't bother me........ Now I'm off to kick some asylum seekers in the face. Cheerio!

Markgway wrote:I'm backing Obama all the way and will be staying up next week to make sure he gets elected.

Who would of thought that a member of the Bullets N Babes holds such power over the POTUS electoral process!

Mark (thinks) he does. I bet he's really backing McCain.

Shingster wrote:Who would of thought that a member of the Bullets N Babes holds such power over the POTUS electoral process!

Ross especially should have known better. He's a 48-50 year old man with 3 kids for Gods sake (that doesnt excuse Brand) and I can't believe he thought it was funny to do what he did

Digital Spy wrote:The BBC has suspended Jonathan Ross without pay for 12 weeks and issued a final warning to the star over his on-air conduct.

The corporation's director general Mark Thompson accepted the resignation of Radio 2 controller Lesley Douglas over the public row that embroiled the BBC after Ross and Russell Brand left a series of vulgar messages on the voicemail of Fawlty Towers actor Andrew Sachs - messages that were subsequently transmitted on an October 18 edition of Brand's programme on the station. He said that "ultimate editorial responsibility for BBC programmes lies with producers and editorial managers", but added:

"Nonetheless, Jonathan Ross's contribution to this edition of the Russell Brand show was utterly unacceptable and cannot be allowed to go uncensured or without sanction. A 12-week suspension is an exceptional step, but I believe it is a proportionate response to Jonathan's role in this unhappy affair.

"Jonathan Ross has already made a comprehensive and unreserved personal apology to Andrew Sachs and his grand-daughter. I believe that he fully understands the seriousness of what has happened. I have made very clear to him the central importance of the clause in his contract about not bringing the BBC into disrepute. We agree that nothing like this must ever happen again and that tight discipline will be required for the future."

Does that mean Ross will be allowed back on TV next year then?

There's more here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7700816.stm

The controller of BBC Radio 2, Lesley Douglas, resigned over the broadcasts involving Ross and Russell Brand. Director general Mark Thompson called Ross's actions "utterly unacceptable", adding that the presenter should regard it as a "final warning".

I bet Friday Night with Jonathan Ross is going to be severely watered down now .

grim_tales wrote:Does that mean Ross will be allowed back on TV next year then?

After his 3 month suspension he'll be sent to prison for a year.

Of course he will. Why do you think he won't be? He'll be allowed on TV now, just not any BBC channels/radio stations for 3 months.

It was probably the right thing to do but boy it's got out of hand. Talk about OTT. Even Brown is talking about it. I wonder why . To deflect how useless he is, we didn't even get to vote for him. The head off Radio 2 has even left, madness.

You're right, I think Brown/Cameron are going OTT talking about it so much, whats it got to do with them?

Gordon Brown has better things to do... like fix this fucked up excuse for a country.

Anyways... punishment dealt. Sorted. Now we can all move on and forget about them.

Not quite: Anger over 'offensive' Queen jokes:

http://entertainment.uk.msn.com/tv/news ... &GT1=61503

Now that's just stupid. Getting offended that a risqué joke is said on a satirical comedy show. Old people have far too much time to think. Some of the jokes in that article are hilarious.

I really hope the BBC doesn't turn into a big brother style corporation, not risking to say anything in case it offends.