![]() |
Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
I don't know which Randi to be.
Newman? Crawford? Think I'll settle for being Randi VanWarmer. What a laugh. Lots of innocent fun. No swearing, and no old folk abused...well only Jaysay.:D |
Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
Quote:
|
Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
Quote:
|
Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
Actually, I don't believe Brand and Ross committed any offense at all. They made a phone call that wasn't particularly threatening, it certainly couldn't have amounted to assault anyway, though perhaps harassment.
The broadcasting of it probably did breach some law, I can't say I've studied broadcasting laws, but as a pre-recorded show, it wasn't the decision of Ross or Brand, and someone somewhere made that decision and are not getting half the amount of public stick that they are getting. A phone prank is generally a joke between very few parties. Someone decided to try and make it a national joke and I still haven't seen their name mentioned. |
Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
Quote:
The laws relating to this area are wide-ranging, and penalties can include imprisonment. Some of the major pieces of legislation are:
|
Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
Quote:
I imagine that it takes more than 4 or 5 phone calls as well otherwise we'd all be reporting telesales people for this harassment. If the law was applied in black and white we'd just feed all the facts into a computer and see whether someone was guilty or not. Unfortunately for everyone but those in the legal profession, it doesn't work like that. Courts would let them off lightly and it wouldn't be worth the expense. |
Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
Quote:
Ross and Brand could have been prosecuted under more than one of those laws. |
Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
Quote:
It also fined Abbey National earlier in the year, and reports that other investigations were ongoing or pending. |
Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
Quote:
I very much doubt they'd have received a strong punishment under any of those laws. They are designed to protect people against terrorising and nasty phone calls, not light pranks. I like Andrew Sachs because he's been really mature and reasonable about the whole situation rather than turning it into an even bigger mess. He's an old man, he doesn't need a pointless court case at his age, he's old enough to know to forgive and move on, which he HAS done, and people should just let it drop now. How many cases do you know like this one where a practical joker was prosecuted? How many do you know where a malicious phone caller was prosecuted under the very same laws? You'll find the numbers are substantially different. Anyone who believes the law is designed to prosecute anyone who steps slightly out of line and will be used in such a way needs to open their eyes to the real world. The only damage that has been done is to their own reputations and careers. Andrew Sachs was satisfied with the apologies they gave him and his family and everybody else should probably mind their own business now and accept it too. The only thing you are doing is providing more work for the media and they're leaching off you for it. There was once a time when Charles Dickens wrote for the media and his literary genius was shared with the public, now all we get is rubbish overblown tales of a prank phone call gone wrong and 'celebrities' on drugs or having sordid affairs and the sad thing is that millions of people are willing to PAY for it. It's just crazy. |
Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
Quote:
|
Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
Quote:
As licence fee payers we are funding the £6 million pound salary of Jonathan Ross and the like. |
Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
Quote:
Still no takers for the joke you could give an elderly relative of your's? |
Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
I am a bit short on the elderly relative front, and the other surviving relatives all know me too well so it wouldn't be a shock to them !:o
|
Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
Quote:
:D |
Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
I could dig some of mine up for you to abuse if you are that desperate rindy ;)
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 17:34. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.1
© 2003-2013 AccringtonWeb.com