Kitz Forum
Chat => Chit Chat => Topic started by: UncleUB on October 27, 2008, 06:55:50 PM
-
Why has the BBC apologised to Andrew Sachs over the phone calls made by Johnathon Ross and Russell Brand.The pair of them should be sacked with immediate effect..Here you have two people with no talent picking up millions in wages via the licence payer.I thought menacing phone calls were a criminal offence.If he had said that about my grand daughter ,well lets just say he would be having soup for a very long time.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7692911.stm
-
I totally agree with you Phil. It was absolutely disgraceful behaviour, and the pair of them should have been straight out of the door.
-
That's three of us who agree. >:(
dave
-
And me.
-
Me five
Why has the BBC apologised to Andrew Sachs over the phone calls made by Johnathon Ross and Russell Brand.The pair of them should be sacked with immeadiate effect..Here you have two people with no talent picking up millions in wages via the licence payer.I thought menacing phone calls were a criminal offence.If he had said that about my grand daughter ,well lets just say he would be having soup for a very long time.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7692911.stm
IMO it seems celebrities could get away with anything as long as they apologised which really gets me >:( . And if those two pillocks had said that about any family member of mine they'd be in a coma let alone eating soup. >:( >:(
-
It seems to be just about the trend these days for presenters to do what the hell that like
I was listening to the radio the other week and one of the presenters was belching loudly. One listener phoned in saying that he thought it was rude and could they please refrain.
At which point the presenters ridiculed the person who had phoned in and started belching even louder and more often.
TBH I thought it was pretty disgusting.. I didnt phone in.. but put it this way - I havent listened to that show on rad 1 since.
It was rude - it wasnt funny - the person who phoned in didnt deserve to be ridiculed... and its not clever.. and there was absolutely no need for it. It reminded me of a 5 y/o behaviour.
I guess I voted with my feet - or in this instance with the tune in button.
But this is the sort of thing, and the type of presenters, that our youth of today are supposed to look up to. :mad:
-
I agree with Uncy and said the same when I first saw the news about it. Disgusting behaviour and condoned by their bosses or else they would sack them....how can they allow this to happen and then let them get away with it. Oh yes, I forgot they are "celebrities" so that's all right then! >:(
Chrissie
-
I notice there's not much about it on the BBC website this morning even though there has been over 1500 complaints about.Why do we the licence payer have to put up with this.Johnathon Ross IMO has no talent what so ever,but is on a £18 million contract with the BBC. >:(.
I dread to think what that other scruffy moron is on. :no:
-
Yup, could not agree more with the sentiments expressed here by other forumites.
I think 'Wossy' has been on borrowed time for quite some while, as he doesn't appear to possess one ounce of talent as far as I can see.
Just my 2 cents worth.
TTFN
-
This is a disgraceful episode, but unfortunately nowadays it is not a rare event in the BBC, an organisation that I despise and loathe with all my might.
There are at least four people who should be immediately sacked from the BBC.
1) The two tawdry and irrelevant presenters who created the offending article.
2) The programme controller/producer of the show in which these presenters appeared. It transpires that the offending item was recorded two days before it was broadcast. The controller/producer then had two days in which to review the programme and has then either made the positive decision to allowed the thing to be aired or was negligent enough to not know what the item contained.
3) The person within the BBC who allowed the £18m (million) contract to be negotiated and signed in order to secure the services of a nonentity.
-
I think the storm is gathering over them, we haven't seen the end of this yet. I really do hope they get the sack, apart from anything else, their 'joke' was the most unfunny thing ever.
I also hope the poor girl they maligned sues them
-
I really do hope they get the sack, apart from anything else, their 'joke' was the most unfunny thing ever.
The BBC will be totally spineless if they don't sack these over inflated (and overpaid) egotistical prats.
Remember, they fired Angus Deaton from HIGNFY for allegations about his private life - nothing to do with his on-air performances.
-
I didn't hear the offending programme at all and I've not listened to any part of any repeat broadcasts. I will admit now to being a 'Wossy' fan, I watch his Friday night show if I am home, and although I do not like offensive language which is sometimes evident, I do find his actual show entertaining, depending on the guests. I also find his Saturday radio show entertaining and sometimes very informative. I think he is an excellent film buff too. I have not listened to Russell Brand at all, but I realise that his 'humour' is risqué and no secret is made of that. As with Jonathan Ross people have the choice of whether they watch or listen to them or not.
I do not condone offensive behaviour, and I do not enjoy foul language in any form. Humour is a very emotive subject and appeals to people in different ways; this is evident even on the forum where I was offended recently by, in my opinion, some 'barrack room jokes' on the other hand, some people found the jokes funny.
The programme in question was pre-recorded and there are 'safety devices' in place at the BBC whereby anything that is regarded as OTT, which, I agree , (from what I have read and heard since about) was the case in this instance, the programme can be immediately edited and in some cases taken off air. IMHO the BBC failed in its duty as a public broadcaster, that is not to say that Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand didn't fail in there duty to serve the public, they made a huge judgement of error.
I agree that both presenters should be disciplined, I would not however call for their heads. There may even be repercussions via OFCOM. I have heard a lot of hypocrisy since this story broke, with a lot of people jumping on a bandwagon. not least Kelvin MacKenzie, the ex-editor of the Sun, whom as far as I am concerned is one of the most disagreeable, foul mouthed people ever to appear on television.
I know I am definitely in the minority on this one.
PS... I didn't agree with Angus Deaton being sacked either.
-
Out of curiousity, I just listened to the program, To be perfectly honest it sounded like Brand was "on sommat" to me.
There were quite a few times when Ross did try to pull him up.. but I'm sure he could have tried harder and not encouraged him. Totally agree that the Beeb could have done way more to stop this behaviour before it went too far. Brand just kept digging himself further into a hole about Sachs grand-daughter.. nope not funny at all. I hope she takes it further.
Its not like this is the first time for Brand is it.. How many other times has he had to issue official apologies after similar type incidents and letting his mouth run away with him.. and how many times has he been thrown out of venues for his bad and/or offensive behaviour.
The comparison with Angus Deayton being sacked is an interesting one - Deayton was sacked for what - taking cocaine and sleeping with prostitutes.
Hmm.. Brand has done just about every drug there is - including being a herion addict and his sexual erm tendencies well.. lets not even go there.
If the beeb sacked Deayton... its total hypocrisy if they dont with Brand. What Deayton did in his private life was small fry compared to what Brand has done in his.
This is public though, and its not the first time.. and he's obviously not learnt from past behaviour.. saying sorry doesnt really cut it when he keeps on doing it.
-
OFCOM are now involved but what will come of it is anyones guess.
Bet they don't get sacked.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7694921.stm
dave
-
OFCOM are now involved but what will come of it is anyones guess.
Bet they don't get sacked.
Last time he was up before OFCOM he got away with it Ofcom ruled Brand's comments were acceptable (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6719847.stm).
-
Brand = uncouth druggie
Ross = Lecherous,foul mouthed pervert
Will anything happen from this,I will be amazed if it does.
Come on BBC,have some backbone and boot them out NOW.
-
The programme was 'aired' on the 18th October. It has emerged that originally the BBC received 2 complaints. Since the media have got hold of this in the last couple of days the complaints have increased to something like 1600 ! either the other 1598 didn't listen to the original broadcast, or, if they did they didn't find it offensive, or, they decided to wait 10 days before realising they were offended. :'(
-
either the other 1598 didn't listen to the original broadcast
More than likely.
They may have listened out of curiosity after seeing links to the broadcast, but that does not stop them complaining.
I have not witnessed live preachings by the anti-British muslim stirrers, only seen repeats when I been told about them, but that would not preclude me from lodging a complaint.
Kate, don't blame the media for the number of complaints, all they appear to have done is draw it to the public's attention.
dave
-
I don't think any significant action will be taken against the presenters or the programme.
The BBC will be happy that an otherwise obscure programme has had a great deal of free publicity...........the ratings for that slot will now go over the moon.
-
Dave, I'm not blaming the media for the public complaints, I am a little sceptical though when people only decide to go looking for the item in order to complain. Had they been listening to the original programme and complained immediately, that would be a different matter. I also find it ironic that the tabloid press should suddenly start taking the high ground !
-
I've been listening to the debate about it on Talksport this morning, and interestingly quite a few people have commented that had this happened on a BBC local radio station, the presenters would have been fired on the spot.
Some of the older ones on here will probably remember when Kenny Everett was fired from Radio 1 for making a joke about the then Minister of Transport's wife passing her driving test.
My, how times have changed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenny_Everett
-
I've not listened to the program and I don't want to, as Jonothan Ross's voice makes me feel depressed and unwell. I've heard it called 'irritable vowel syndrome'
However.... if the calls were genuinely offensive, then surely the pair could and should be prosecuted under normal civil/criminal law and punished accordingly, regardless of whether or not the BBC sacks them. I'd hate to think that just because they work for the BBC they were above prosecution?
-
Currently stuck in an exchange waiting for something to be sorted and I spotted this:
Currently on radio 4
15:45 Running Away
Actor Andrew Sachs takes a trip to London Zoo.
Wonder what "animals" might catch his attention their ? ;)
-
heh
btw - the one thing that I am curious about.. that I dont seem to have seen much mention about is...
Apparently this started because Sachs was meant to be doing an interview with them that day.. and didnt turn up.. which is why they decided to phone him in the first place
Has anyone heard of why he didnt turn up for the slot... or anything more on that?
-
Over 10000 complaints now and rising
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7695951.stm
-
Gordon Brown's joined in as well now
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7695951.stm
-
bandwaggon springs to mind.
-
Witch-hunt springs to my mind.
-
I still think they deserve a some sort of punishment even if it is a slap on the wrist. Theyve both done this sort of stuff before admittedly not as bad..
If you or me did anything like that at work - then we'd have to face the consequences.
I got a formal warning once for telling my line manager where to stuff something when at the real end of my tether.. and after it was she who was actually in the wrong.
It was only when I got the union involved , and it was found out that it was she who was wrong... and the backing of a Branch manager who'd known me for about 10 years who said in all that time he'd never heard me say that word before (professionally or socially) and I had been provoked, that it was dropped.
If I can get a formal warning for co-incidenatally using the same word that Johnathon Ross did why the hell should they get off scott free with what they did.
I think what they did was wrong and it isnt acceptable.
Our kids are supposed to look up to these sort of people and its hardly setting a good example is it.
-
I agree totally Kitz that what they did was totally unacceptable and that they should be disciplined, so should the person who allowed it to be broadcast despite it being pre-recorded. The problem I have with all of this is the 'bandwagon' mentality that has taken over. The ONLY people to come out of this with any credibility at all are the TWO people who complained at the time of the broadcast, and I believe their complaints were about the language involved. The newspaper media has had an agenda for a long long time, certainly regarding Jonathan Ross, and the main factor is his salary ! I can think of a lot of people in far more prominent positions, earning large salaries, that have done far more harm than he has, and it seems that petty jealousies are now dictating their latest agenda. I have listened to several 'phone ins' discussing this item, and the majority of the 'band wagon complainers' have all said they don't like one or the other or both of these presenters. I don't feel that that should come into it at all. For Gordon Brown to talk about 'inappropriate behaviour' is risible as far as I'm concerned.
To my mind the whole think has escalated out of all proportion. Yes, all the people concerned should be castigated by their employers not by a lynch mob press, and people who, prior to it being plastered all over the media, wouldn't have had a clue the programme had been transmitted in the first place.
If Andrew Sachs was embarrassed before, and I'm sure he was, he will be far more embarrassed now. His granddaughter may be getting more publicity than she ever thought possible, which I have a feeling she won't be complaining about. However, even though she is not the shy retiring type, that doesn't excuse the behaviour and she should not have been the subject of this 'item'.
I realise that I am in a minority of one on this subject :) but I'm hoping to be able to continue with my viewing and listening in the not too distant future.
-
I got a formal warning once for telling my line manager where to stuff something...
That would happen to be 'up her jumper' by any chance?
-
>> That would happen to be 'up her jumper' by any chance?
Nope.
-
SUSPENDED ,well at least its a step in the right direction,but.....................
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7696714.stm
-
SUSPENDED ,well at least its a step in the right direction,but.....................
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7696714.stm
Yes true Uncy... but..... no doubt after all the furore they will be allowed to "perform" again. There's no shame in this country now and no respect so it's not surprising that (a) these things happen and (b) no one is ostracised and punished
-
If the BBC suspends, bans or completely take off the air all the programmes that involve items that may cause offence to different people, they would be left with very little to broadcast. The only reason this action has now been taken is because Gordon Brown decided to get a bit of the attention, and a Motion was tabled this morning in the Commons. I find it startling that politicians are able to dictate, to any extent, as to what is or is not broadcast on a public service broadcasting service and anyone who has been worried about the PC Brigade and Nanny State interference would have reason to be worried now.
The BBC should have dealt with it following the TWO original complaints and avoided all the ooh-ha that has since taken place.
I understand that some on here are offended and I hope I've not added to that offence, but I really do hope the programmes are reinstated soon, not simply because I want to listen/watch again, but because I fear this could be the start of a slippery downward slide.
-
Gordon Brown decided to get a bit of the attention,
If I recall correctly he was about the last person to comment; David Cameron & Co having got there first, so should he ignore it?
As for any commons motion, that will almost certainly be an individual MP after a bit of publicity - any idea who it is? ;D
-
I understand that some on here are offended and I hope I've not added to that offence, but I really do hope the programmes are reinstated soon, not simply because I want to listen/watch again, but because I fear this could be the start of a slippery downward slide.
No offence taken here Kate,everyone has to be able to have their own opinion. :)
-
HP ... Nigel Evans ... he was the MP for the area I used to live in the UK, ( he was known locally as "Evans the Loser" as he managed to lose the Ribble Valley seat for the Conservatives for the first time - probably since records began !!! ;D ) he didn't impress me then and he doesn't now :)
Re Brown's intervention ... I know others piped up before him, but I would have thought he had enough problems for the moment ;)
Unc ... :flower:
-
Re Brown's intervention ... I know others piped up before him, but I would have thought he had enough problems for the moment ;)
Indeed, so you would think people should have had the common sense not to ask him, but they just can't resist. :-X
-
>> I understand that some on here are offended and I hope I've not added to that offence
Not at all Kate - everyone is entitled to voice their own opinion.
You put your side across and your reasons why you feel the way you do... just like the rest of us.. and I have no problem with that.
As long as the debate is reasonable then people are free to put their own PoV across. It would be a pretty boring world if we all thought the same.
-
:)
-
Scottiesmum, of course you have not given offence............you put your points logically, clearly and civilly. No-one objects to that.
(It's the suns that got us riled :lol: )
-
(It's the suns that got us riled :lol: )
Well now you mention it TD..................................................... :D
-
mmm Politics,,,,, I'm staying out of that one, as there can never be a winner it will always be a political hotbed for discussion.
Three topics that should never be discussed over alcohol=
Politics
Religion
Work
-
Chicken. :P
My mates and I always discuss those things (among others) down the pub most Thursday evenings.
It can get quite "robust" at times, but hey we're blokes and don't bear grudges (well not from a drinking session anyway)
-
Scottiesmum, of course you have not given offence............you put your points logically, clearly and civilly. No-one objects to that.
(It's the suns that got us riled :lol: )
:lol: :lol:
:o :o :o I've just been outside to shut some shutters and the temperature has plummeted >:( >:( that should give you a warm glow TD :lol:
I hope it zooms up again soon .... a trip was on the cards for next week :-\ :'(
-
I've stayed out of this one, as I didn't hear the programme or the context in which the remarks were made.
As it took the media a week to pick up on this I'm inclined to think that there's a sub-text going on here.
That aside I am surprised that as this was pre-recorded it was allowed to be broadcast unedited, but that of course would have probably meant having to admit it was not a live show, as many listeners thought it was, which may account for the initial two complaints only, which I believe was about the swearing, not the stupid phone calls.
I am not a fan of either of these two gentlemen and my idea of purgatory would be having to listen to these two on a Saturday afternoon, but there are more people than these two involved, a whole production team, surely someone knew that their behaviour was unacceptable, for broadcast at least, but apparently not.
-
I think the basic issue I have with this whole affair is that Brand, Ross and the BBC have broken the law by harassing Sachs via the telephone. There's far too much "one law for them, one for the rest of us" in the UK now anyway - although it is mainly politicians who get away with routinely breaking the law, but "celebs" get away with it as well. If I did this and was reported I'd be prosecuted or at the very least receive a caution.
Bets on that happening to Brand, Ross and whoever sanctioned the offence at the BBC?
-
>> That would happen to be 'up her jumper' by any chance?
Nope.
Ooh you little minx.
-
(It's the suns that got us riled :lol: )
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
No thats just pure jealousy (it is for me anyhow) :lol:
-
The name of this thread sums it up.
Johnathon Ross suspended without pay (I'm sure he'll find it a financial hardship) for 12 weeks.
This foul mouthed uncouth moron is still getting away with it,if (which he clearly hasn't) got any decency about him he would have resigned.
This is not just about the phone calls,he has been getting away with unacceptable behaviour for far too long.People should vote with their remote controls and switch over whenever he is back on air.
-
You're so right Uncy, Ross is an experienced broadcaster and should have known better... it's not enough to leave it to the program editors (who seem to have escaped punishment so far)... and a pity the station controller decided to fall on her sword.
THE DG needs to sack Ross and then do the honourable thing himself.
-
You're so right Uncy, Ross is an experienced broadcaster and should have known better... it's not enough to leave it to the program editors (who seem to have escaped punishment so far)... and a pity the station controller decided to fall on her sword.
THE DG needs to sack Ross and then do the honourable thing himself.
It isn't the first time Brand and Ross have been in trouble for their Radio 2 Broadcasts.
-
The real issue for me is not just the details of this case, but what it highlights about the BBC and the way it works. We're in the middle of a serious financial turndown, the commercial TV companies are having to tighten their belts because of reduced advertising revenue, but the BBC is totally insulated from such problems by its assured income from our licence fees. In such circumstances the BBC must preserve very high standards. But it doesn't; it competes for viewing figures at the same lowest-common-denominator level as the commercial companies, and sacrifices quality for popularity. It doesn't have to pay outrageous salaries to the likes of JR, but it chooses to in order to court popularity. That's my money and yours which they are spending, and irritates me no end.
-
Twelve weeks suspension! Without pay! :'(
I wonder how he will manage on just 75% of his annual salary of (reportedly) £6m.
He will have to struggle to make ends meet this year with only £4,500,000 coming in.
Unless he does a bit 'on the side' for the 3 months that he is not working. Some commercial radio station will probably try to grab him to 'boost' their listeners figures.
dave >:(
-
Yes, it would be good if the government decided to cut the licence fee and BBC budget by, say 10%.
It would make them sit up and think a bit, like most businesses have to all the time.
-
the BBC is totally insulated from such problems by its assured income from our licence fees
... which is inflation protected
In such circumstances the BBC must preserve very high standards. But it doesn't; it competes for viewing figures at the same lowest-common-denominator level as the commercial companies, and sacrifices quality for popularity.
That's how we end up with drivel like 'Hole in the Wall'... and we thought 'Pets Win Prizes' was bad.
-
That's how we end up with drivel like 'Hole in the Wall'... and we thought 'Pets Win Prizes' was bad.
Does anyone actually watch that garbage. :no:
-
That's how we end up with drivel like 'Hole in the Wall'... and we thought 'Pets Win Prizes' was bad.
Does anyone actually watch that garbage. :no:
I prefer to listen to Harry Hill's commentary on You've Been Framed... I don't watch it, but HH is hilarious to listen to.
-
Years ago some one in the office said we must go down as a group to the waterfront and see some up and comming new comic. who was roumored to have a few tv apperences lined up in the future, that was HH.
Though I really enjoyed the warm up act, some bloke called Al Murray.the 3rd act I can't remember, never saw them again.
My fave comedian is Eddie Izzard, inteligent humour. a 15 minute chunk of a routine in Latin french and german and I'm still crying with laughter
News Quiz, radio4 tonight 6:30, repeated 12:30 tomorrow
-
I enjoy Eddy Izzard too .....very clever humour .
Al Murray :-X :-X - now he DOES want banning :D
I'm back on my one woman crusade ;D I think the now virtuous Daily Mail and it's cronies should be paying for your TV licences as they appear to be the arbiters here.
I can't really complain that JR won't be on air for 3 months, as I don't pay a UK licence fee ... but I for one look forward to his return especially on his Saturday morning radio show. We could disagree about this forever, but there are things in life that are far more important, but we can agree to disagree :)
-
I would imagine that HIGNIFY is going to be a classic tonight... I think my two favourite comics at the moment are Jack Dee (don't see enough of him IMO), and *Frankie Boyle from Mock the Week.
*the one who looks like a reject from the Proclaimers
-
I would imagine that HIGNIFY is going to be a classic tonight... I think my two favourite comics at the moment are Jack Dee (don't see enough of him IMO), and *Frankie Boyle from Mock the Week.
*the one who looks like a reject from the Proclaimers
At least I can't see up his nostrels. although I agree I do find Him and Mock the week funny
-
Not really seen the news for the past couple of days - so just done a catch up on this now..
Summary if Ive understood correct?
Johnathon Ross suspended without pay from all BBC shows and is also voluntary not doing the ITV Comedy awards which will cost him an additional £100,000.
Lesley Dounglas the Rad2 Controller has resigned over this - despite not even hearing the prog before it went on air. "Sacrifice" Wogan called it.
Info about Brand is a bit sparse but he resigned from the show - doesnt say anything about if he will still be broadcasting his other stuff - oops edit hes off to LA to do something else with helen mirran.
I could be wrong but having heard the content - I still reakon that Brand was possibly off his head on something... and although Ross did attempt to pull him up a couple of times.. Ross obviously didnt try hard enough.
Hmmm.. Now this bit I do find interesting.
Whats this what Sachs is saying about someone ringing him up before the show was broadcast and asking him if he was ok for the show to go out and Sachs saying "No not really".
The shows producer then agreed they would do another show the next week.
So exactly what happened
~ the Producer had contacted Sachs prior to it going out to ask if he was ok with it
- Sachs said No
~ Producer said they would arrange alternative interview to replace what Ross + Brand originally did.
~~~ Someone at the BBC then decides to broadcast it anyhow.
To me that puts a whole new slant on it.. Just who the hell was it decided they would air it anyhow.
-
Well Kitz, you could edit the offensive content from the program to be broadcast, but removing the messages from Mr Sach's answering machine is entirely another matter.
-
There was another twist mentioned during a late radio talk programme I was listening to on Thursday, I've actually forgotten the chaps name ::) , but he was 'in the know' ( by that I mean he wasn't surmising). Apparently following the calls to Mr.Sachs, the same one you are talking about Kitz, NOTHING was mentioned again until SIX DAYS later when he mentioned it to his Agent and this was as a result of a Daily Mail reporter getting involved. He continued to say that he thought something very fishy has gone on.
Now methinks, could there be someone at the BBC who, doesn't like Brand, Ross or both and might also have a journalist friend ? Lesley Douglas resigned after a 23 year, other wise blemish free, career even though she hadn't heard the item prior to airing. Wogan might not be far off when he calls it a "sacrifice" !!
I know this doesn't alter the fact that the call was made in the first place.
I'm afraid Tom Baker ruined HIGNFY (for me) last night .... Ian Hislop didn't look too impressed either :)
-
Tom Baker was trying too hard to be a 'character' but it looked forced and artificial. It struck me that he was trying to emulate Brian Blessed who really was OTT when he appeared on HIGNFY but at least made people laugh.
-
I thought HIGNIFY was a bit of a let down last night... tonight's extended repeat might be a bit better.
-
I thought HIGNIFY was a bit of a let down last night... tonight's extended repeat might be a bit better.
I didn't rate it either, he isn't my cup of tea anyway, there's plenty more who are funnier methinks.
-
Youre right Kate... me thinks theres a bit more to this than meets the eye.
The show's producer was obviously concerned enough about this to ring Sachs and ask if he was ok for it to be aired. To which sachs replied "Not really"
The shows producer also said it wouldnt go out, and then agreed to make arrangements so that Sachs could come in the following week to do a proper interview.
That would clearly indicate to me that the Producer at least had some doubt about airing this. What doesnt appear to have come out as yet is - just who over-ruled the producers promise to drop that particular recording and do a proper one... and actually gave the nod for the offending program to be aired.
Apparently Lesley Douglas hadnt even heard the tape before hand so that leaves a few options.
~ Someone in a position between the producer and the BBC2 Controller over-ruled the producers decision.
~ The Producer backed down on his promise to re-do another show. This doesnt quite make sense or why would he have contacted Sachs in the first place to get his permission. He must have had concerns over the content to do that.
~ Someone did ask Lesley Douglas what she thought and she gave the ok without actually listening to the tape. Again doesnt quite make sense if she was doing her job properly.. if she knows Sachs has said no... then surely she would have at least listened to it before letting it go out.. wouldnt she???
There very likely is a name right smack bang in the middle of all this, which hasnt yet surfaced.
-
This is what I meant about a sub-text to this whole affair, I get the feeling that some one somewhere has a hidden agenda. Why were HR and RB given Mr Sachs voice mail number, surely only someone on the production team would have need to have that, who passed it on to them?