Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[HPsauce]

Chicken. 
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]

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  )

 

     I've just been outside to shut some shutters  and the temperature has plummeted       that should give you a warm glow TD 

I hope it zooms up again soon  .... a trip was on the cards for next week   

[Yorkie]

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.

[guest]

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?

[Floydoid]

>> That would happen to be 'up her jumper' by any chance?

Nope.

Ooh you little minx.

[kitz]

(It's the suns that got us riled  )

 

No thats just pure jealousy (it is for me anyhow) 

[UncleUB]

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.

[Floydoid]

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.

[jid]

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.

[roseway]

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.

[dave.m]

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 

[HPsauce]

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.

[Floydoid]

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.

[UncleUB]

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. 

[Floydoid]

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. 

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.