Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

Run for the hills .. he's back ! .. hope you had a lovely holiday Cashy .. :D

Sure a figure of 2 million listeners was quoted .. ? Or was it 400,000 ... mmm no think that was Brand's salary. Was a lot anyway which surprised me.

Well anyway, the grandaughter is getting her own back by telling the world how crap Brands was in bed ... the ultimate public insult . LOL

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

Jambutty is right, it isn't about the granddaughter. It doesn't matter what she did or didn't do or what she's doing now, she can sleep with every adult male in the BBC for all I care. The point at issue isn't her morals but the unacceptable behaviour of 2 radio presenters. It would have been bad enough if they had made the phone calls privately, and it certainly wouldn't have been any business of the public, but the fact that they pre-recorded it and then broadcast it is what makes it all the more reprehensible. Acceptable standards of broadcasting have nose-dived in recent years and the complaints are indicating that Joe Public, in general, disapproves.

Me? I'll stick with Radio 4. Could you ever imagine John Humphrys effing and jeffing on the Today programme? :eek:

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

yep we did ta,:) aint unduly bothered about her or them, the whole point of what happened to me is lack of respect fer a 78 yr old fella, who aint a bad owd stick,in my view, fer me its things of this ilk, being acceptable to some is the main reason society has gone downhill, n people are too thick to see it.:rolleyes:

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

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? :rolleyes::D

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

I havent heard the recording of the show - just read about what it said on the bbc website. As far as im concerned both of them should have been sacked. Have they never heard of the saying respect your elders. Would they like to have been on the receiving end of a phone call like that. I know i wouldnt. I asked my brother what he would do if that had been him - about his two daughters. First he'd visit a solicitor, get them arrested and when they'd posted bail or whatever then he'd go after them and beat them up. They showed no respect for either andrew sachs or for his granddaughter. I wonder how many women russell brand went to bed with were quaking in their boots just in case that happened to them, it wont now that he's resigned but until he resigned there was the chance that it could have happened to them. Agree with Lilly and everyone else - would you like that to happen to your granddad?

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

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 !

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

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.

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

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.

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

Anyway Brand's old news on Accy Web.

We were split between love and hate two years ago.:D

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

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

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.:rolleyes:

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

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

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

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?

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

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!

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

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.

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

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.

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

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.

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

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

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

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.

He's been already been likened with marmite...;)

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

I noticed his Twiglet legs too

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

'The following year, Ross appeared at the British Comedy Awards, where he joked his salary meant he was "worth 1,000 BBC journalists".
The comment was made at a particularly delicate time as the BBC had just announced it was to make more than 2,000 members of staff redundant.'

BBC NEWS | Entertainment | The ups and downs of Ross' career

That just about sums up the arrogance that comes about with golden handcuff contracts.

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

Very true. They should have just sacked the one instead! :mad:

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

true some haven't said their actions were acceptable, nor have some said they were not, more tried to deflect the issue to the career of the grandaughter, n said give the lads a break,well that don't wash wi me, the fact is,these two were at "Work" therefore the action amounts to "Gross Misconduct" which is punishable by "Instant Dismissal" simple as. or do you think so called stars should be exempt from normal procedure? cos i don't. also its more than likely,this would have been a police matter if it was you or i that had done similar.still they are highly paid stars.:rolleyes:

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

Excellent post, Cashy....karma sent. :D

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

It certainly would have been a police matter, which makes what they did a criminal act. Now, because one of the culprits is still in the employ of the BBC (albeit under a temporary,tax break suspension) that makes the BBC a criminal organisation. Which means that everyone now has both a moral and a legal obligation not to fund them. So no more TV license! Whoopee!

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

They were acting idiotically and were most certainly in the wrong. But the buck stops with the people who allowed the recording to be aired, not Brand and Ross. Sachs would not have suffered the public humiliation that he did if not for those that commissioned the programme.

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

Rubbish! The programme commissioner is undoubtedly partly to blame but please don't try to put it onto someone else when Brand and Ross made the calls, said what they said and found it amusing to do so.

Everybody has a sense of what is right and wrong in them - surely even they could tell that what they were doing was wrong and they shouldn't be doing it.

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

The calls were wrong. We can all agree on that. However, Sachs would not have suffered the public humiliation that he did if the people who commissioned the program had binned the tapes. It was their responsibility. Anyone with any sense can see that.

Did I debate the fact that their actions were wrong? No.

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

[quote=shakermaker;646103]
So if someone posted on here private details about your life, who would you be cross with - the person with the grudge or the mods?

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

Of course - if the call was illegal than how can the programme producer be held responsible? They were responsible for broadcasting the programme and should be punished for it.

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

It's not even a matter of debate, it's fact. Had the commissioners binned the tapes, fifty people maximum would have known the event had taken place. They didn't. They allowed the programme to be aired - even though Sachs told them not to air it - and the following weeks gutter rags displayed pictures of his grandaughter in the buff with sordid tales of sexual adventures with Brand.

But yes, of course, the people who commissioned the airing of the programme are only partly to blame.

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

That's a silly analogy that doesn't even work. The people who commissioned the airing of the programme made a conscious decision to ignore Sachs' instruction against the programmes airing. Moderators on here wouldn't have chance to do that. Only to delete remarks after they had gone live.

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

Hardly silly! The person in question would have posted the info just like Brand and Ross made the call.

It doesn't matter how many people know about it - it matters what was done and who did it.

I'm blaming Brand/Ross and the commissioner equally - not dumping all the blame on her for allowing it to go to air.

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

And what punishment should have been handed out to those that made the call by the BBC?

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

That's exactly where the similarities end. Which makes it silly.

Again that's quite silly. His brazen hussy (:D) of a grandaughter wouldn't have been plastered across the tabloids humiliating him if the tapes were binned. Of course the calls would have still been incredibly offensive to him and absolutely wrong, but the public humiliation wouldn't have occurred.

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

Suspension, along with Brand and Ross. They were all in the wrong.

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

The whole affair has been blown WAY out of proportion purely down to the tabloids dictating to the public. I think two very talented comedians have been made scapegoats, as well as the radio 2 controller, because of something that originally created TWO complaints. The media then churned up a story and generated a further 18000 complaints. Shambolic. Everyone knows what Russell Brand is like, he's like Roy Chubby Brown in some respect, people know what they are like, if they are easily offended they stay away. Brand is no stranger to controversy, and I wasn't exactly shocked by what he had done, it's in his character. I think the tabloids were in the wrong in this saga, personally

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

The buck stops with the perpetrators, Ross and Brand. They were the ones who made the obscene phone calls. Incidentally, was there an audience whilst the programme was being recorded?

The buck also stops with the people who allowed the recorded programme to be broadcast. Lesley fell on her sword but there is still the person who actually allowed the programme to be broadcast. That person or people should also go - for gross incompetence.

At least Brand had the decency to leave, so what does that say about Ross. Not a lot.

The DG bottled out.

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

If it is a criminal act should the presenters that made the call not be sacked?

The producers should be sacked for allowing a criminal phone call to be broadcasted

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

oh well if its in his character its obviously ok, rubbish, chubby brown aint paid a fortune by the beeb, people actually pay if they wish to see him n thats fine. :(

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

Not public humiliation but what about private humiliation.

And what about the programme audience – that makes it pretty public.

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

what is it about the TV license that really riles people?? If you broke it down i think maybe 0.0001p went towards Brand's & Ross' wages combined out of everyones fee. The waste goes on rubbish like BBC staff transport, and paying people to come up with "innovative" logos and other ridiculous things like the creative people who come up with ideas for programmes that are drastic. A LOT of money is collected by the BBC and not all of it is paid to Radio 2

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

Of course there would still have been the 'private humiliation' as you put it, but you'd be very hard pressed to find one person who would prefer the public humiliation he was subjected to by the commissioner.

There was no audience?

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

Just wondered legally, what exactly would they be charged with ?

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

If this had been commercial radio they would have been sacked on the spot as the station would not want to upset it's advertisers. The BBC do not operate under such constraints.

When recording shows for future broadcast, some editing usually takes place and mistakes etc. are edited out. It is unlikely that a lowly engineer would dare to question the inclusion of this material, for fear of his or her job. It should however have been brought to the attention of someone in authority.

The level of talent the presenters have or don't have is not the issue, both JR and RB should both be sacked for allowing material to be broadcast which breaks the BBC's bropadcasting guidelines. Offensive material broadcast on live shows could be classed as accidental but there is no excuse for an offensive recording being broadcast. The length of time took to reach a decision by the lily livered bosses on the matter was ridiculous. If I was guilty of misconduct in my work place, I would be marched out of the building and my personal belongings would be posted to me.

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

Found this-
Under the Communications Act 2003, it is an offence to send over a public electronic communications network a message that is "grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character".

here - Lords rule on 'grossly offensive' phone calls | OUT-LAW.COM

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

Thanks .. knew you would find it. :D

Guess it fits the first and second then at least .. what do you think about the others ?
Just that you associate the other descriptions as 'dirty phone calls' or threatening you with harm.

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

Margaret, I think that says it all, and those responsible for putting out the program are as culpable as Ross and Brand, Brand hands his tickets in so does the controller,and Ross gets a slap on the wrists, but he is just as much to blame as the other two and should have gone of his own volition and if not they should have sacked him

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

There are a number of offences involving the making of malicious or offensive phone calls under the Telecommunications Offences Act but no action can be taken unless the recipient makes a formal complaint.

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

Guess just reflects what a lovely man Andrew Sachs is then.

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

He has prevented himself and his family a nightmare journey through the legal system.

I am still waiting to hear if I need to get to London early in the morning, for my new radio show on R2. They are leaving their reply a little bit late.

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

Well, that's a point ... wonder what will replace it ?

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

I cant believe this thread is still going...LOL

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

this whole episode raises to me a bigger issue, having just heard on the news, that Radio 1 - whose listeners consist of mainly younger people, who the news says support these 2, n think its a fuss about nowt. that says to me, they have no understanding of decent behaviour, morality,or whats acceptable, which is sad cos if they took the trouble to learn this, society would be a far better place.

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

I heard that he was willing to let the matter drop as soon as Ross successfully issued the following apology:
but it never came...

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

Part of Jonathon Ross's very generous contract stipulates that he shouldn't bring the corporation into 'disrepute'. Something that has clearly happened.

Any normal employee, who made malicous telephone calls whilst at work, and who broke their contract so blatently, would have been fired straightaway, and rightly so.

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

Please feel free to post your grandparents telephone number in this thread.

I'm sure it could be arranged that some equally funny wag could call them with some sordid tales about you. It matters not a jot if they're true.

How we'll laugh, along with your eldely relatives, at this hamless lark.

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

James Whale was recently sacked by commercial radio station Talk Sport, for telling listeners in London to vote for Boris Johnson in the mayoral elections.

Even though he had by far the station's largest audience, he was dismissed the very next day.

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

Some members will be too young to remember this. It ruined Bill Grundy's career, even though he didn't actually say anything untoward. He was said to have "encouraged" them to swear.

YouTube - sex pistols - bill grundy tv show

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

That's because the media and BBC are still issuing statements, etc., Panther.

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

apologies , I think I got cross wired and posted this inthe wrong thread earlier and got timed out and was unable to edit .

OK here in the US I get on BBCAmerica the Graham Norton show , not too bad, a bit 'silly' in parts but tolerable, and the locals like him , never seen this Ross/Woss person On BBCAmerica , obviously the BBC don't think he is worth exporting , so why is he being paid so much...... do the Aussies/ Kiwis /Canucks and Boers like him so much

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

I remember it,changed my youth.Brilliant.But you've got to remember Grundy egged The Pistols on..."go on,say something outrageous....".Nobody egged on Ross & Brand,only their own egos.Shows how much iv'e changed since 76/77.I suppose all the youth who are backing the two radio buffoons are a 2008 version of my younger self.

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

The Brand and Ross cheerleaders are doing their best to distract the public from the real issue and muddying the waters by introducing the granddaughter details.

The real issue is that Brand and Ross made lewd, disgusting, obscene and slanderous phone calls to Andrew Sachs.

Ross should fall on his sword and if he doesn’t then the DG should stab him in the back.

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

one point im suprised nobody has mention is that malicious/prank phone calls are illegal how is fonejacker allowed to be aired? To be honest i think it has been blown out of proportion but what brand and ross did was wrong. i did used to like ross but now i have lost all respect for him, brand is just an OTT twit with an IQ lower than his morals. but the fact that only two complaints where made at the time shows that it wasnt that big an issue until the media jumped on it, as usual they mould the story to sell papers.

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

Perhaps no one complained because very few people actually listen to Russel Brand's show. When it was put forward for general consumption people were appalled at the contents, and the target, of the messages. Anger and disgust isn't diminished just because it's retrospective.

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

Very mature.

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

Just as mature as those people who side with Brand and Ross.

It’s called voicing an opinion.

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

My opinion on this is that he WOULD sue but they can hardly prove that she DIDN'T sleep with Brand :p

I think they were having a bit of a laugh and they just let it get out of hand. I do find Russell Brand funny but I didn't used to. I don't find Jonathan Ross funny though.

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

I'm sorry blazey, but your missing the point, and as somebody who is studying law you of all people should know, its not the content of the call that they made, its the fact that they made to call at all, and on a radio program that was for public consumption, they even broke to law of the land, whether the content was true or not, it was an offence

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

According to today's Sunday Times in a later call, that wasn't broadcast, Ross and Brand left a message saying they would masterbate 78 year old Andrew Sachs, as a way of 'saying sorry' for what they'd said in earlier calls.

How utterly hilarious.

I'm so glad my licence fee is being used to fund Jonathan Ross's £18 million pound B.B.C. contract.

He's a comedy genius...NOT!

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

Blimey if that had been broadcast the country would have had a collective heart attack,considering the furore the other messages caused.

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

Broadcast or not, I've had to sack people who've done far less offensive things than that whilst at work.

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

The thing that is more annoying is the fact that the BBC can pay this nomark that kind of money, money that wouldn't be paid by any commercial station, to me thats a fare bigger scandle:(

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

that reinforces what i fer 1 already think, they aint 1 bit sorry fer the offence caused, just sorry about there own loss.:cool:

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

Nonsense. As I've said before why would the BBC put anyone on a highly paid contract in a primetime show when 'very few people listen to his show'?
The fact is that it's a terrible state of affairs in this country where we (the general public) let a group of faceless journalists working for a toilet-paper-worthy rag such as the Daily Mail decide what we are offended at. Everyone wants to be heard above everyone else. Everyone wants to be more offended than the last.

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

What a contemptuous view you have of the public, if you think that. The fact is, people have seen accounts in a number of different papers about the puerile garbage that these two left on Andrew Sach's answerphone and made up their own mind about it. And, the fact is, a large number of people don't like paying the wages of a couple of thoroughly unpleasant creeps who think it's funny to bully and humiliate a gentle 78-year old man.

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

that view yer on about, seems to have drastically altered, now the guys n academic, or is that just cynical me?:rolleyes:

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

Expected more from you cashman, really. :(

The facts speak for themselves regarding the amount of complaints made before/after press release. It really is a sad state.

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

yeh would have got more from me shaker, yer musical taste saved ya,:D;)

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

We pay our licence fee, and therefore the salaries of every B.B.C. employee, and are entitled to an opinion, whether we saw or listened to any particular broadcast or not.

I haven't personally seen the war in Iraq, but I still have an opinion on it.

Jonathan Ross isn't in the B.B.C.'s top ten rated programmes, either on television or radio. His salary far outweighs his talent, or the number of viewrs/listeners he pulls in.

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

All that shows is that people who did not hear it think it is wrong.

Do you think what they did was acceptable?

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

As I've said three times now, come on, post the telephone number of an elderly relative of your's, and we'll arrange for someone to call them up from work, and have a real laugh with them talking about your personal life.

If for some unbelievable reason they don't get the 'joke', the person will call them back and offer to masterbate them.

The number you want called is................................?

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

...and for another thing you've totally misread the view of the general public over this fiasco, and overestimated the power of the press, especially the best selling non-red top tabloid, the Daily Mail.

If the Daily Mail really had that much sway over public opinion we wouldn't have had a Labour government for the past eleven years.;)

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

No telephone numbers yet?

Damn, and I'm feeling so cutting edge hilarious at the moment.

Oh well, I can wait.

A good joke's always worth the wait.

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

Becareful with the phone calls you make mate.
The last crank phone call we had to our house got its sender 4 years in prison :D

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

The purpose of news media is to make us aware of events we'd otherwise be ignorant of. The disparity between complaints before and after the papers got hold of it isn't really relevant. Is it wrong to be offended by something you weren't privy to firsthand?

I have no love of newspapers generally, never mind the tabloids- but this is one instance where there is no way to dress it up with either a negative or a positive spin: The audio, poor-quality video and transcript speak for themselves. Everyone can make up their own mind, they don't need a newspaper to do it for them.

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

[quote=garinda;646846If the Daily Mail really had that much sway over public opinion we wouldn't have had a Labour government for the past eleven years.;)[/quote]

And only half the population we have now :)

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

Exactly.

Besides, I couldn't do it, not being a comedy genius myself, but I'm sure we must have a wag on this forum, who could carry out the 'joke' to the high standard set by Ross and Brand.

Defenders of comedy freedom, the number of your elderly relative you'd like called is
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

The thing is Randi, when any one has to resort to personal abuse of another person, in the name of comedy, can't be classed as a comedian, and to pay them £6 million a year to do it, shows just how much the licence fee we pay every year is being totally abused. Not only that there are also those so-called executives at the Beeb that receive far in excess of what the Prime Minister gets for running the country, tells me its time the licence fee was scraped and that the BBC made to raise its own funds like the other channels do, then the likes of Ross and Brand will get the kind of fees their talent warrants, peanuts, well that's what they give performing monkeys

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

:rofl38::cook38::rofl38:

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

The problem is I can't even blame that on my laptop key board, that must be my deliberate mistake for this week:D:rolleyes:

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

ROFLMAO!!!! Hes gonna love that one, randi rindi :D

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

:D:D:D

That's your best ever typo, Jaysay! :D

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

Who said it was a typo Lilly:rolleyes:

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

it had me laughing for ages, nice one j ;)

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'
 

Ah .. but is there a bit of truth in this, what could be, Freudian slip ? That's what we all want to know ..... :D

Re: Brand/ross 'prank'
 

Hey less of the old you young whipper snapper:D

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'
 

The laws relating to this area are wide-ranging, and penalties can include imprisonment. Some of the major pieces of legislation are:

• The Malicious Communications Act 1988, which lists offences relating to sending indecent, offensive or threatening letters, electronic communications or articles with the intention of causing distress or anxiety to those receiving them.
• The Protection From Harassment Act 1997, under which a person must not pursue a course of conduct
  (a) which amounts to harassment of another person, and
  (b) which he/she knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of another person.
  In a similar way is also an offence for someone to pursue a course of conduct which they know or ought to know will make someone afraid that violence will be used against them.
• The Telecommunications Act of 1984, which states that a person who:
  (a) “sends, by means of a public telecommunications system, a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character;
  or
  (b) sends by those means, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, a message that he knows to be false or persistently makes use for that purpose of a telecommunications system,”
  is guilty of an offence