Jonathan Ross & Russell Brand !!!

Page 2 - Passionate about caravans & motorhome? Join our community to share that passion with a global audience!
G

Guest

I believe the bigger debate should be about the manners and what is acceptable to the younger members of British society today.

If you find somebody boasting on air about who they've had sex with funny and telling their family about it on or off air acceptable I find it very sad. It reflects poorly on British parenting and morals.

The sort of behviour and humour Brand and Ross trade in is not acceptable if you want respect for all in day to day life. It's a sickness and I'm glad I'm not paying for the BBC.
 
Jun 20, 2005
18,724
4,423
50,935
Visit site
If one of the national tabloids were to publish articles about Messrs Brand and Ross rumoured $exual dy$function the libel lawyers would take the paper publishers to the cleaners.

I really couldn't care less if I never saw either of them on my tv again.

Hopefully some of the paparatzi will now uncover loads of dirt on the two idiots and give them some of their own treatment.

Cheers

Alan
 

Parksy

Moderator
Nov 12, 2009
11,904
2,399
40,935
Visit site
What I find annoying is that media establishment types are now appearing on news programmes saying that the public reaction is out of proportion to what happened and that we should 'draw a line under it'.

The implication for me is that once again the ordinary man and woman in the street have no right to debate or question the actions of the corporation that WE pay for. Once again it would seem that THEY know best.

It's all very well the controller of the BBC stating blithely that 'entertainers' push the boundaries so they shouldn't be too surprised when we, the silent majority who have to endure the consequences of this boundary pushing, decide to push back.
 
Jan 19, 2008
9,103
0
0
Visit site
Quote alan ... "Hopefully some of the paparatzi will now uncover loads of dirt on the two idiots and give them some of their own treatment".

The problem with that alan is these two would see it as a badge of honour because it would appeal to those who they appeal to, just like ASBO's do to the cretins on todays streets.
 
Jun 20, 2005
18,724
4,423
50,935
Visit site
Parksy

In part they are right. Brand has publicly apologised to Sachs but has yet to make his peace with the Grandaughter. He has resigned and hopefully will not surface somewhere else. That rights him off and we can move on.

Ross on the other hand has remained , I believe, somewhat less than contrite. So he deserves all the bad press available.

If we didn't pay our tv licence there wouldn't be a BBC. So I believe we have every right to voice our opinions as "shareholders" and continue saying sack Ross. How on earth can he be worth
 
Apr 4, 2005
845
0
0
Visit site
I agree with Euro in that the question should be about what the younger generation find funny etc. It has been stated on the lunch time news that the younger folk are wondering what all the fuss is about and us older generation feel something should be done.

I think it shows that us older people can remember when decency and consideration for others was the norm and when we could turn on the television and find something to enjoy. Nowadays, the TV is full of rubbish programmes, containing mainly, violence, humiliation, hospital programmes whose story lines are full of family grief, death etc. For those of us who have nursed family members through death, then this cannot be watched as entertainment. The soaps which many young people watch are all violence etc., and younger generations are being brainwashed into thinking that this is acceptable and the norm, and hence their attitudes to the likes of Brand and Ross.

Complaints about these two are for many the voice that we are fed up generally with TV rubbish and that presenters who are paid vast amounts of money have a very priviliged situation especially in these troubled times. People who are overpaid for not acatually doing very much should accept that they have a duty to set an example and not take their salaries as permission that they can just keep stepping over the line and get away with it.The BBC should also seriously question such salaries when the majority of licence payers have a very

hardtime just trying to make ends meet and bring up their families.

It is time to clean up TV generally and in my opinion, especially the F word which again just creates a feeling of disrespect.
 
Aug 10, 2008
233
0
0
Visit site
I agree with Euro in that the question should be about what the younger generation find funny etc. It has been stated on the lunch time news that the younger folk are wondering what all the fuss is about and us older generation feel something should be done.

I think it shows that us older people can remember when decency and consideration for others was the norm and when we could turn on the television and find something to enjoy. Nowadays, the TV is full of rubbish programmes, containing mainly, violence, humiliation, hospital programmes whose story lines are full of family grief, death etc. For those of us who have nursed family members through death, then this cannot be watched as entertainment. The soaps which many young people watch are all violence etc., and younger generations are being brainwashed into thinking that this is acceptable and the norm, and hence their attitudes to the likes of Brand and Ross.

Complaints about these two are for many the voice that we are fed up generally with TV rubbish and that presenters who are paid vast amounts of money have a very priviliged situation especially in these troubled times. People who are overpaid for not acatually doing very much should accept that they have a duty to set an example and not take their salaries as permission that they can just keep stepping over the line and get away with it.The BBC should also seriously question such salaries when the majority of licence payers have a very

hardtime just trying to make ends meet and bring up their families.

It is time to clean up TV generally and in my opinion, especially the F word which again just creates a feeling of disrespect.

I think you have summed it up beautifully
 
Apr 23, 2007
511
0
0
Visit site
I like filth. I like comedy. Put the 2 together. Bliss. :)

Radio 2 is NOT for the 'younger ones'. Radio 2 is where you move onto when your kids are listening to radio 1. I would estimate the average age of radio 2 listener to be between 40 and 50. Thats at least middle aged.

I don't understand how people become so involved in matters such as this. Use your remote control and don't watch or listen to stuff you don't want to. Why should people comment on stuff that they don't watch. There is enough licence fee to go round everyone.
 
Nov 7, 2005
503
0
0
Visit site
Ian, your comment brilliantly sums up all that is wrong with so much of present day society...

This is nothing to do with what YOU as a listener like or dislike. It's nothing to do with entertainment. It's about obscene phone calls to innocent parties, broadcast or not.

You don't have the decency to appreciate or even understand the offence and harm caused to individuals by thoughtless, lewd actions.

All you care about is that you can have a good laugh - at someone else's expense.

Sick...and sad that there are people out there with such despicable personalities. For God's sake, even the perpetrators acknowledge they did a very big wrong.
 
Aug 17, 2007
233
0
0
Visit site
Ian - According to the BBC their target audience for Radio 2 is 30+ while their target audience for radio 4 is 50+. Jonathan Ross' TV show is targetted for 25 + people.

I do appreciate that I can control the filth that you enjoy so much by use of a remote control. What I don't seem to be able to control is that I have to contribute to the cost of producing it !

Bill
 
Apr 23, 2007
511
0
0
Visit site
Ian, your comment brilliantly sums up all that is wrong with so much of present day society...

This is nothing to do with what YOU as a listener like or dislike. It's nothing to do with entertainment. It's about obscene phone calls to innocent parties, broadcast or not.

You don't have the decency to appreciate or even understand the offence and harm caused to individuals by thoughtless, lewd actions.

All you care about is that you can have a good laugh - at someone else's expense.

Sick...and sad that there are people out there with such despicable personalities. For God's sake, even the perpetrators acknowledge they did a very big wrong.
Fair points colin, excellently put.

Don't misunderstand me, I believe what they did was wrong, absolutely 100% I don't like having a laugh at somebody else's detriment. JR and RB should answer for what they did in exactly the same way that we would.

My irritation is in the consequences we try and impose on people when they do things wrong in todays society. Listening to people on phone ins that are currently on through out the country, I honestly believe there are people out there that would actually like to see these two hung, or at least sacked;sued for every penny they have leaving them as nothing more than a sniveling bum sleeping on the streets. All seems a bit extreme to me. The hate pouring out of the radio is just something I don't understand.

Its difficult on a forum to express ones feelings about a subject and then it hurts when somebody misinterprets you as a person and suggests you may not be 'decent'. Without going into detail about my own personal life I can assure you Colin that I am a very 'decent' person. I'm just expressing an opinion about somebody in the public eye;I'm not labeling people on here as anything so just think think on before you suggest things.

Thanks
 
Apr 23, 2007
511
0
0
Visit site
Bill

Our license fee gets divided up into millions and millions of tiny portions. Its absolutely impossible for us all to agree what gets spent on what as we would never agree.

For example I enjoy opera and classical music as provided by radio 3. I know this is a minority enjoyment and so I am sure if we all had to vote on whether we should have more of it the answer would be no. Same with JR show. Maybe its only a minority that likes it and so we wouldn't have it.

Think of it this way; Its MY license fee that is spent on JR and RB and YOUR license fee that is spent on eastenders, etc.

Thanks Bill
 
Aug 10, 2008
233
0
0
Visit site
Ian, your comment brilliantly sums up all that is wrong with so much of present day society...

This is nothing to do with what YOU as a listener like or dislike. It's nothing to do with entertainment. It's about obscene phone calls to innocent parties, broadcast or not.

You don't have the decency to appreciate or even understand the offence and harm caused to individuals by thoughtless, lewd actions.

All you care about is that you can have a good laugh - at someone else's expense.

Sick...and sad that there are people out there with such despicable personalities. For God's sake, even the perpetrators acknowledge they did a very big wrong.

"For God's sake, even the perpetrators acknowledge they did a very big wrong".

Interesting use of words. Would be extremely obliged if you could tell me what tone you would take in your writing towards, murderers,rapists, wife beaters, thieves muggers ect ect.!

because the persons in question were not any of these,and lets be clear unlike some who stay anonymous while phoning you up and giving abuse down the phone, it was pretty clear who the people doing it were!

Wrong it was, in bad taste it was, but that's it. "A very big wrong" It certainly was not.
 
Apr 23, 2007
511
0
0
Visit site
"For God's sake, even the perpetrators acknowledge they did a very big wrong".

Interesting use of words. Would be extremely obliged if you could tell me what tone you would take in your writing towards, murderers,rapists, wife beaters, thieves muggers ect ect.!

because the persons in question were not any of these,and lets be clear unlike some who stay anonymous while phoning you up and giving abuse down the phone, it was pretty clear who the people doing it were!

Wrong it was, in bad taste it was, but that's it. "A very big wrong" It certainly was not.
exactly
 
Apr 4, 2005
845
0
0
Visit site
The BBC does have to cater for every taste and one simple way to do this would be to put programmes which may offend either by content or language, onto say BBC 3. People who wanted these programmes would know where to find them and the rest of us would have more chance of putting on channels 1 and 2 in the hope of watching something without suddenly being subjected to F words etc. every few minutes. We are not all prudes but just would like to watch something NICE for a change.
 
Aug 10, 2008
233
0
0
Visit site
"We are not all prudes but just would like to watch something NICE for a change."

Like what chrissy? EastEnders [violence] walking the dead [violence] casualty[violence] spooks [violence]ect ect.

If these programmes are acceptable and portray normal life,in the extreme,it seems strange that so many take such a massively strong stance over one issue of comedy going too far,cuzz thats what it was....
 
May 25, 2008
771
1
0
Visit site
Ian " Our license fee gets divided up into millions and millions of tiny portions"

Exactly so we can't really pick and choose what we watch in line with what we HAVE to pay for. The BBC has shot it's self in the foot on this one, that's why the DG came off his holiday to try to sort this out.

Crisis time at the beeb
 
Nov 7, 2005
503
0
0
Visit site
Ian, your comment brilliantly sums up all that is wrong with so much of present day society...

This is nothing to do with what YOU as a listener like or dislike. It's nothing to do with entertainment. It's about obscene phone calls to innocent parties, broadcast or not.

You don't have the decency to appreciate or even understand the offence and harm caused to individuals by thoughtless, lewd actions.

All you care about is that you can have a good laugh - at someone else's expense.

Sick...and sad that there are people out there with such despicable personalities. For God's sake, even the perpetrators acknowledge they did a very big wrong.
Ian, forgive me for not recognising that you are a thoroughly decent person. Saddo that I am, I just didn't make the connection with filth (dictionary definition: "any substance considered disgustingly foul or unpleasant") and decency. But what do I know?

g, my comments and tone were on the subject of taste and decency. In those terms, it was a big wrong not just in broadcasting/comedy terms but in what was done to the direct victims. Would you have done it to anyone you know? Would you like any of your elderly relatives to be on the receiving end of such a tirade - just for a laugh? Ross and Brand readily admit it was an aberration. The fact that even they concede it and you can't even see it, speaks volumes...
 
Jan 19, 2008
9,103
0
0
Visit site
Quote g ... "it seems strange that so many take such a massively strong stance over one issue of comedy going too far"

... can you inform me where it was comical please or at least give me a clue? This was a forty something and a thirty something male using pre-pubescent playground pranks and it says a lot for the people who thought it was funny.

May I ask would you have found it comedy if you had a daughter and it was broadcast to the country that some well known infantile adult had been screwing her?

Somehow I don't think so because that makes her a slapper in everyones eyes but if you were the father of Brand he would have been classed as a Jack the Lad and all would have been fine ;O)

Sadly most TV channels go for shockabilty but the BBC is worse.

There is a play on soon starring Martin Shaw and it's already being put around in the media that it's the most shocking ever. It deals with exorcism, gay sex, murder and a man being skinned alive in a gay sauna.

In Apparitions, directed by Joe Ahearne, Shaw plays Father Jacob, a priest running a Roman Catholic seminary in London.

One of his students, a young gay Italian man called Vimal, is expelled and then seen visiting the sauna in a gay club where he is attacked by a homeless man possessed by a demon.

Viewers are shown the two men fighting naked and flesh being sliced from Vimal's arm before the camera lingers over the ghastly image of blood oozing from his skinned corpse.

Shaw said he realised that Apparitions would be controversial. "The more the better," he said.

"I'm not going to pretend this is the most positive show on Earth. We're talking about the end of all things but the message is that love conquers all.

"It doesn't show a wholly positive message, otherwise it would be Songs Of Praise and people would switch off. It is going out at nine, an acknowledged watershed."

No doubt he is right, it doesn't show a wholly positive message, it's just there to shock and prove that the BBC can beat other channels when it comes to depravity.
 
Aug 10, 2008
233
0
0
Visit site
Quote g ... "it seems strange that so many take such a massively strong stance over one issue of comedy going too far"

... can you inform me where it was comical please or at least give me a clue? This was a forty something and a thirty something male using pre-pubescent playground pranks and it says a lot for the people who thought it was funny.

May I ask would you have found it comedy if you had a daughter and it was broadcast to the country that some well known infantile adult had been screwing her?

Somehow I don't think so because that makes her a slapper in everyones eyes but if you were the father of Brand he would have been classed as a Jack the Lad and all would have been fine ;O)

Sadly most TV channels go for shockabilty but the BBC is worse.

There is a play on soon starring Martin Shaw and it's already being put around in the media that it's the most shocking ever. It deals with exorcism, gay sex, murder and a man being skinned alive in a gay sauna.

In Apparitions, directed by Joe Ahearne, Shaw plays Father Jacob, a priest running a Roman Catholic seminary in London.

One of his students, a young gay Italian man called Vimal, is expelled and then seen visiting the sauna in a gay club where he is attacked by a homeless man possessed by a demon.

Viewers are shown the two men fighting naked and flesh being sliced from Vimal's arm before the camera lingers over the ghastly image of blood oozing from his skinned corpse.

Shaw said he realised that Apparitions would be controversial. "The more the better," he said.

"I'm not going to pretend this is the most positive show on Earth. We're talking about the end of all things but the message is that love conquers all.

"It doesn't show a wholly positive message, otherwise it would be Songs Of Praise and people would switch off. It is going out at nine, an acknowledged watershed."

No doubt he is right, it doesn't show a wholly positive message, it's just there to shock and prove that the BBC can beat other channels when it comes to depravity.

LB. The Jeremy vine show, has a good mix of people from different age groups. When this subject got aired at the beginning of the week, it did indeed seem that the vast majority of listeners were up set and mad at this prank.

But then they revealed the split to be 60/40! between those that were angry and those that though mainly people were getting on the band wagon and should get a life.

By the end of the week,and this news still setting the headlines,even though the economy was still being rocked by falling house prices, and massive losses by hedge funds in the stock market, people complaining about those that were still complaining about this radio show had moved to 2/1 against the original complainers!.

Now I have said already that this prank was over the top, but many did find it funny in parts, and you cannot dictate your moral standings to everyone ,nor can I. You have to accept that.

Now you are older than me, so maybe you recall the issues concerning Rock and roll. To the grown ups of that time, it was almost devil worshipping,to the young it was freedom of expression.This could be applied to so many circumstances where the old/mature, disagree with the younger generations,and this radio issue is indeed a good example.

The popular conscientious on here indeed would be it was over the top,in the same way as rock and roll was, because we are older and more mature.

But that does not mean our views are shared by those that actually partake in that radio show, indeed nobody on here who has complained actually listened to it!Nor would they have any idea about what took place had it not been mentioned in one newspaper.

The good thing about being older and mature,is that you usually see through all the hype.

It was in bad taste, but certainly didn't warrant the media hype that has been given to it, there are far more news worthy stories out there, indeed it just goes to show what sort of society we are living in when this incident becomes such a talking point for many hundreds of thousands of normally rational people.

Yes LB it was funny in places.

Now for those who really have how morals why not take a look at the sort of comedy shows on bbc3, the lastist in a long line is gowning up[I thing] buggery is high on the a gender in that teenage show!

It follows on from a long line of sex being the main talking point for comic gags! on comedy shows.

I have not noticed a long line of complaints concerning these shows!and indeed the humour used by the likes of brand is merely an extension of this so called humour.from a vast long list of modern TV shows!that the BBC has been making over the last decade.

So if people were really that interested and concerned,instead of moaning on here, why has the BBC not been inundated repeatedly for these type of programmes they have been doing for the last decade? Well nobody is that famous on those shows,or maybe the media haven't bothered to pick up on it, no there job is to be over dramatic, and use known characters to stir up a media hype.....But us mature people would know that. right.

So
 
Jun 20, 2005
18,724
4,423
50,935
Visit site
Lesley Douglas has resigned as head of Radio 2. She is the fall guy on the basis , rightly or wrongly she allowed Brand and Ross to broadcast their garbage.

What a shame Ross hasn't the ba
 
Aug 10, 2008
233
0
0
Visit site
It is very sad that Leslie Douglas has had her resignation excepted by the heads of the BBC, when clearly there are producers whose job it is to weed out these type of things,that one never hears about as a rule.

In truth yet again the lesson has not been healed .

In life be careful what you wish for, after all had it not been for this media hype, one talented head would still have their job.

No point blaming the celebrities for this, safe guards are in place in all walks of life,this one failed and indeed would have past by, and maybe mended if not for the band wagon!

Blood is what was wanted and that's what you got.......
 

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts