On 31 Oct 2008 at 1:53pm Coops wrote:
I think Brand and Ross should be put on the Sachs Offenders Register
On 31 Oct 2008 at 2:50pm Mystic Mog wrote:
Perhaps late entries to be enemies of bonfire??
On 31 Oct 2008 at 3:52pm Taff wrote:
Exactly what have they done to merit becoming enemies of bonfire?
On 31 Oct 2008 at 4:20pm sashka wrote:
Well they did harass a 78 yr old pensioner with offensive phone messages. It is a shame as they can both be very funny, without being so insensitive.
But it's the idiot/s who approved broadcasting their excessive silliness that should get some special Lewesian treatment
On 31 Oct 2008 at 4:36pm An Economist wrote:
I don't know Sashka. Yes, whoever chose to broadcast those insults was in the wrong. But Jonathan Ross earns £6,000,000 a year from the Beeb. By my reckoning, that equates to the income from 43,000 colour TV licenses. Assuming each household has on average two members - I don't know where that figure came from, I just made it up, but then economists are allowed to do that - then that means a population five times the size of Lewes is effectively channelling its license fee into paying the waste of space that is Jonathan Ross. I think we are entitled to be a little disgruntled when he basically abuses a pensioner over the airwaves in the name of "humour".
I did also feel sorry for Sachs's granddaughter until I discovered that she had flogged her story to the Sun. And then my feelings of empathy disappeared.
On 31 Oct 2008 at 4:44pm me wrote:
"Exactly what have they done to merit becoming enemies of bonfire?"
that would have been my question.
"Well they did harass a 78 yr old pensioner with offensive phone messages"
Again, their link to bonfire is what exactly?
Lewes should steer clear of this media created witch hunt. 2 People complained after the original broadcast. the rest of the complaints are a media created bandwagon for which all the sad and envious individuals can jump onto
On 31 Oct 2008 at 4:54pm Mystic Mog wrote:
Ok, ok, ok. They were not meant to be serious contenders since they have very little to do with bonfire.
I responce to"Me". Just because only 2 people complained means nothing. It could be that only 2 people listened. No complaints does make something right.
To me I would not surprised if they had had a line or two before recording. Bit like Derek and Clive had more that couple of drinks before their very funny sessions. However their recordings were not broadcast nationally.
......Mr Hastings I am not going to change your sheets again.....
On 31 Oct 2008 at 4:58pm An Economist wrote:
I agree, me, there is no reason they should be made enemies of bonfire. However I don't think the fact only 2 listeners complained in the first instance, to be followed by 27,000 people "jumping on the bandwagon" once the story appeared in the national press, is relevant. I never listen to Radio 2. So I am unlikely to be one of the original complainants. But I do pay £140 a year to the Beeb, and I reckon that gives me a say in who they employ, and how much they pay them. I reckon 27,000 other people felt the same way.
On 31 Oct 2008 at 5:02pm Catherine Wheel (The Original) wrote:
Mog and Sashka, you have to actually annoy the bonfire society to become an enemy. I agree with ME, I thought it was incredible how many people complained so long after the event and didnt even know the content. RB and JR became over excited on there show, which is usually brilliant and did a very stupid thing and have now paid. P.s. Could the Catherine Wheel who posted on the Nevill Thread find another moniker please !
On 31 Oct 2008 at 5:02pm Ann wrote:
Yes, only 2 people who listened complained and the other 24,998 (or however many it is now) had to and hunt out the bit on You Tube so that they could be shocked by it. How sad is that?
Imo most people have complained because they resent the money these people are paid, not because they were shocked. Now where rdo I address my complaint about premiership footballers? They spit on the pitch, they do, it's disgusting!
The decision to broadcast the piece wasn't made by Brand or Ross, so strictly speaking, the complaint that it was broadcast shouldn't be against them either. I'm tired of all these self-appointed censors trying to decide what we should be able to see and listen to. There's obviously a section of the public that enjoys this sort of stuff or Brand and Ross would be out of work. That section of the public pays their licence fee the same as the rest of us, why shouldn't they get what they want some of the time? No-one forces anyone to listen.
On 31 Oct 2008 at 5:35pm Sashka wrote:
I don't think anyone seriously thinks these two should be in Bonfire. its just the basis for a thread.
I don't care how many people complained, or why. It just isn't right to leave offensive messages on a strangers answerphone. It is even worse that the victim was a pensioner. Hasn't it occurred to you Ann that this isn't about censorship of comedians, it is about using other people without any concern to their rights, the law, and the effect using them without their position might have. Have you considered that Mr Sachs, would initially have no idea who left the messages. Was it two well known presenters? had he heard of them anyway? Did he think malicious hoaxers had got his number? At 78 Mr Sachs might also be ill, frail, or simply easily shocked. i do know that he is not a particularly public person, who enjoys unbridled notoriety, as this is why 'Manuel' had a moustache.
I think brand and ross can be really funny, but they overstepped the mark, were out of control, and some idiot broadcast this stuff. How would you feel if your 78yr old grandpa had been left messages like this?
On 31 Oct 2008 at 5:53pm Pearlie wrote:
Is that grandad's little princess Georgina Baillie, aka Voluptua touring with the 'Satanic Sluts' who sold her story (Am I wrong?)(And grandad too by the look of today's headlines) to the Sun newspaper. the alleged porn star Warning - please don't do this if you are easily offended.) Go to Strictly Broadband, I won't post the link because it's a porn site. I can't be sure it is her, perhaps someone wants to check it out and get back to us.
It was very ungallant of Ross and Brand, it was inappropriate but really, I don't think they deserve putting on the rack for it. It was misjudged, badly, they apologised. It should not have been aired, any man jack off the street could see it was unbroadcastable.
Before you get on your high horses don't really care what she gets up to, she has a sex life, so what? But let's be realistic, if she slept with someone less famous it would probably not have come out but it was bound to happen one way or another. I for one would not have been quite so suprised or offended, if I knew her at all. Now let's move on. There you are you made me say it.
On 31 Oct 2008 at 7:20pm Thomas Paine wrote:
Leave an offensive message then broadcast it to millions to for their amusement? Happy Slapping for Grown Ups, that is.
I don't like the Media Circus though - another Dianathon.
On 1 Nov 2008 at 6:38am river boy wrote:
you wait and see the bbc will be welcoming ross back soon . the bbc are just as bad .
On 2 Nov 2008 at 12:54am Lopster wrote:
Brand is a twat - let him rot in the Tower - Ross makes me laugh, let him have three months off over Christmas - the goon that broadcast the uneditted tape after Sachs said no should be answerable
On 2 Nov 2008 at 9:39pm SG wrote:
The whole thing is ridiculous. Even Sachs has said he got where they were coming from as fellow performers and that they just took it a bit far. Everybody involved is acting very well about the whole thing, it's the onlookers who have blown it out of proportion.
On 2 Nov 2008 at 10:46pm OK wrote:
They were out of order but this has all been blown out of proportion. It was only 2 years ago that Sachs grand daughter was selling her story to make money on the fact that she had bedded Brand. One set of rules for her and another for them. The only thing they did wrong in my books was phone an elderly man and make pratts of themselves, which i think they already know.