View Full Version : BBC Prank call - how outraged are you?
muffinman
28-10-2008, 18:08
I was driving into work today listening to 5live. The Jonathon ross/ Russell Brand situation was being discussed.
A female listener was seething with rage at the indignation of it all, stopping just short of asking for the death penalty.
On my way home six hours later, MPs were discussing the same issue.have they nothing else to worry about?
I know that me bringing this up just adds to the airtime but, i just need to know if anyone else feels that the backlash is just a touche OTT.
I'm bloody sick of hearing about it TBH.
You'd think Gordon Brown would have more important 'issues' to deal with. Pillock! :mental:
Too right! At worst, it's just crass stupidity and inappropriate behaviour in bad taste by two celebrities (and the BBC) who should've known better.
There are far more important things going on in the world to worry about. It simply highlights again that the UK is full of 'moaning Minnie’s' with nothing else better to do with their time!!
What was this ridiculous woman's main 'beef', then? She needs a good slap and told to get a grip.
Marco.
P.S I had to watch tonight's news to find out what you were referring to as I normally ignore this sort of nonsense ;)
I normally ignore this sort of nonsense ;)
Please feel free to continue doing just that.
I've not heard this 'prank call' and I'm in no hurry to do so either. I assume today is one of those days when there is little that is newsworthy in the eyes of 'the media'. Pillocks! :mental:
Beechwoods
28-10-2008, 19:48
It was a stupid and immature thing for Brand and Ross to do.
But the BBC producer was even more stupid to think that it was worth broadcasting. It should have ended up on the cutting room floor if nothing else from a 'not funny' perspective.
I won't be sorry to see Russell Brand sacked and J. Ross docked half a million by way of punishment. There are more important things to worry about but my licence fee went towards paying them for this debacle and they should have known better. Or at least someone at the BBC should have known better.
Just imagine for a moment that their call had been made randomly to some member of the public then think how it would play out...
muffinman
28-10-2008, 20:23
It was, without doubt, immature. the editor was stupid.
when the show aired there were 2(two) complaints recieved.
after the story broke the number rose to 2,000. tonight that number has reached 10,000!
now that Beckham has risen from the ashes, the press have a chance to destroy another brit who's gotten a little big for his boots i.e. Brand.
Ross has had it coming for a while, mind you.
If the press get their way (a sun phone poll perhaps?) it would'nt suprise me if Brand upped sticks to the states (where he is a rising star) and rightly protest that this country cannot abide success.
greenhomeelectronics
28-10-2008, 20:29
It's a crazy world we live in. I think it just goes to show how easily some people are led. I mean, 2 calls of protest during the show and 10,000 complaints now??? That's more people than are currently protesting about the price of gas or our government giving all our tax money to the failing, greedy banks.
Ross is overpaid though, think of the other things the beeb could do with the 6 million quid he is getting. Git.
Dave.
Beechwoods
28-10-2008, 20:46
I thought Russell Brand was quite good when he was doing 'Big Brother's Big Mouth' but when he decided to make a joke 999 call about some bloke who was wanted for a number of sexual assaults I lost my sense of humour. Funny that.
I think most people are complaining not so much because they were offended by what they heard, but offended at the fact the BBC thought it was fair game.
The editor was probably so in awe of Brand and Ross that he couldn't find the balls to say no. Tosser.
True, Beechy, and I think you're spot-on with your last sentence above.
If the press get their way (a sun phone poll perhaps?) it would'nt suprise me if Brand upped sticks to the states (where he is a rising star) and rightly protest that this country cannot abide success.
I think that's largely the case here and it does my head in. I detest this mentality with a vengeance. Why can't Brits be like Americans and celebrate success? What's their problem? Success deserves to be acknowledged positively and celebrated!
Notice I didn't say "our" problem because I consider myself more Italian than British.
Marco.
I'll be fundamental.
Brand and Ross committed criminal offences. They need to be prosecuted. All this BBC apology bollocks is a smoke screen.
The average non celebrity offender committing this offence would most certainly be charged and presented to the court and get convicted. I'm apalled that celebrity status seems to insulate offenders from the lawful process. It shows our Judical system is a nonsence.
Anyone else doing what they have done when generally employed would be sacked.
I don't care that they are on £6000,000 contracts......they've broken the law.....throw them before the court, convict them and fine or imprison accordingly.... oh, isn't idealism wonderful ;)
It makes my blood boil. These highly paid foul mouthed arseholes seem to have an immunity because they have 'celebrity' status. Bollocks. They are the same as you and me and consequently should be subjected to the same scrutiny.
Probably the saddest thing is that Ross with his talented forensic penatritive interview technique scores effectively and actually doesn't need to use the lude elliment of his act to be successful.
Bottom line. They've committed criminal offences. Prosecute them just as Joe public would be prosecuted.
We really do need to get back to some reality!
Beechwoods
28-10-2008, 22:55
A message definitely needs to be sent out to the nation at large that this kind of behaviour is not acceptable, and not to be emulated. The BBC should lead by example.
Some chance of that! Greg Dyke was forced out for less, and that's the real irony!
It makes my blood boil. These highly paid foul mouthed arseholes seem to have an immunity because they have 'celebrity' status. Bollocks. They are the same as you and me and consequently should be subjected to the same scrutiny.
Agreed wholeheartedly, Greg! And I also agree that what these two idiots and the BBC done were wrong.
However, 10,000 complaints to BBC HQ is IMO somewhat ridiculous considering that there are far more serious events going on in the world such that this nonsense has no more than 'comic status'. It tells us quite clearly that there's something intrinsically flawed with the general British public's 'outrage' mentality...
I can think of far more to be outraged about that's going on in this country than the inane and inappropriate behaviour of two celebrity twats!
Marco.
Primalsea
28-10-2008, 23:27
Whats possibly even worse is that bloody Cameron fellow using it to try to score some points by saying how terrible it all is on the news. It seems all he does is run around chasing the shirt tails of the latest sensationalist news so he can make a public comment in the hope that the public will like him more.
We all do things that seem like a good idea at the time what counts when it happens is what you do afterwards.
However there is no excuse for MP's who try to use the situation for their own gain.
No, but that's politics I guess Paul!
Marco.
Filterlab
29-10-2008, 11:07
Russell Brand = cock.
Frankly he's a childish moron who has never been funny, even accidentally. He associates himself with the lowest pond life on television and would be more apt the licking the windows of the local sunshine bus. He's a fool.
Jonathan Ross on the other hand is an experienced broadcaster and should know better than to associate himself with fools and their simple minded act.
Beechwoods
29-10-2008, 12:32
You do have a way with words, Rob.
It's only taken the BBC 13 days to start doing the right thing : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7696714.stm
I smell blood. Let's bring back the birch :)
Filterlab
29-10-2008, 12:52
:)
Filterlab
29-10-2008, 13:25
Unsurprisingly:
Suspended - 13:24 29/10/08 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7696714.stm)
Beechwoods
29-10-2008, 14:16
Like I said :)
Good!
Hopefully it will stop making headline news now. Pillocks!
Whatever they've done is what they've done...but have you seen Andrew Sachs grandaughter??? See below..
http://salvationgroup.com/satanic/sluts/voluptua.htm
Prince of Darkness
29-10-2008, 18:46
Still doesn't excuse leaving offensive messages on his answering machine.:(
I know..I know.
If you really want to know what all the fuss is about...you can here.
http://celebrity.rightpundits.com/?p=4546
I can't be arsed...but I do enjoy the pics of the young lady, and I'm sure she will enjoy her new found so called celebrity.
Beechwoods
29-10-2008, 19:19
If it were all about her celebrity this story would have broken 10 days ago, and played out in a very different way.
The BBC were still at fault to broadcast it.
This is just another facet of the poor editorial control that led to fake phone-ins and the Queen 'walk-out' scandal.
That's the real story.
I couldn't care less frankly about Jonathan Ross, Russell Brand and whatever show-biz families get up to. I do care about the BBC though, and what they do with my money :)
I'm just relieved that I won't have to suffer listening to Russell Brand again..
Prince of Darkness
29-10-2008, 20:08
I'm just relieved that I won't have to suffer listening to Russell Brand again..
For the time being anyway. I can't see the BBC handing out a significant long term punishment to either of them. :o
I'm just relieved that I won't have to suffer listening to Russell Brand again..
I'm afraid to say, that painful gobshite will be back. Pillock! :(
Like others have already said, Ross should have known better.
http://latestnews.virginmedia.com/news/entertainment/2008/10/29/russell_brand_quits_radio_show?vmsrc=vmhpld
Great.... F*ck off!
And pleeeeease don't come back! ;)
pure sound
30-10-2008, 09:06
Interesting. What law did they actually break? What should they be charged with?
There's definitely an agenda here spearheaded by the SKY owned print media to have a go at the BBC and also by other newspapers like the pompous Daily Mail who want to return all TV to the safeness of Terry & June. This seems to be all they (the Daily Mail) has to talk about now house prices have actually crashed. I suppose its taken George Osborne's embarassment off the front pages too. (It always amuses me that the Daily Mail also rails against modern art and then carries adverts for disgustingly kitsch pieces of Franklin Mint tat as if that is really what people should regard as art & aspire to own.)
As is usual, the media are over reacting mainly to sell papers.
I do think Jonathan Ross is overpaid & probably on TV & Radio too much. OTOH I actually find Russell Brand's stand-up comedy very funny (& astute) when I occasionally see bits of it. They seem to have overstepped the mark here but someone at the BBC should have prevented this pre-recorded show from being broadcast.
Sadly all that will come of this is the inevitable reality tv work for Andrew Sach's granddaughter who probably can't (with Max Clifford's assistance) believe her luck.
Both Brand and Ross committed offences under the following legislation.
Malicious Communications Act 1998.
Sec 43, Telecommunications Act 1984.
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
Human Rights Act 1988.
Penalty, 6 months imprisonment or fine not exceeding level 5.
muffinman
30-10-2008, 23:28
Both Brand and Ross committed offences under the following legislation.
Malicious Communications Act 1998.
Sec 43, Telecommunications Act 1984.
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
Human Rights Act 1988.
Penalty, 6 months imprisonment or fine not exceeding level 5.
in a society where carrying a knife will likely get you a caution
Hi Muffin,
I very much concur with your point. You might like to know that last week we recieved a Home Office directive which stated that only now in extreme circumstances are we to caution for knife crime including very simple posession of a bladed instrument (blade 1 inch long or less). Unless there are extenuating circumstances, all offences are to be charged to court. Extenuating circumstances include lawful and realistic possession such as the carpet fitter with a Stanley Knife or the diver with a long diving knife, provided the circumstances of possession are apropriate, ie during the course of travel in persuance of the occupation or part of a relavant tool kit. Outside of that, the offence is considered to be complete and an appearance in court is expected. For these types of offences, the caution option has now been discontinued. Frankly I believe this is most certainly how it should be.
Best wishes,
Greg
....interesting. I used to carry a Toolman gadget in the car. Very sharp 3 inch blade on the bugger, but really there for the pliers etc. Don't carry it in the car anymore since I read of someone being prosecuted for having a big pen knife in a vehicle.
I usually carry a Leatherman in my pocket, because it's a really useful thing to have. It has a 3" blade. Does that mean that I could end up in court just for carrying it?
I usually carry a Leatherman in my pocket, because it's a really useful thing to have. It has a 3" blade. Does that mean that I could end up in court just for carrying it?
Ditto!
You guys would get on well in Glasgow - every bugger is 'tooled up' to the max! :eyebrows:
Marco.
It's all about common sense and circumstance. Clearly if your possesion of a knife or combination tool is reasonable, no arrest or following prosecution should happen. Possesion of a diving Knife for instance, outside of any diving application would be an outright offence. However, travelling to and from diving activity would be acceptable provided the item is being transported approprately. That means, together with the rest of the diving kit in a bag in the boot and not in the car door pocket or strapped to your leg :)
Likewise with your Stanley Knife or Multi-Tool. If your possesion can be justified there should be no problem. When I used to go camping I carried a very serious 5" lock Knife. It was a useful tool related to the activity. I did not however need to retain it on my person apart from when I was using it as the tool it was intended to be. The rest of the time it stayed out of personal contact and locked away in the car. Even if you occupationally require to use knives or similar tools, the base line to consider is, 'Do I need to have this item with me at this moment in time?'
If you are a carpet fitter, whilst working you might well have a Stanley knife on your belt or in your pocket. Once you've concluded your carpet fitting, put the knife away. Don't keep it on your belt or in your pocket. As for, 'well I always carry it with me just in case it could come in handy', that now is a non starter and not considered reasonable. Multi-Tools very much fit this catagory. Bottom line is, if you have a task to do (and you can evidence accordingly)that requires the tool to be in your possession. No problem. If you can't justify such possession, you are, if caught, at risk of being arrested and prosecuted. If you were confronted by me you'd find me very reasonable and I'd scrutinize the situation rationally owing to my 30 years of experience. In contrast, if confronted by one of my much younger and probably impetuous colleagues, you might find considerably less understanding and rationality ;)
It's mostly about a bit of adjustment of habit and if you think it through that's not bad. Rather than habitually slip your multi-tool into your pocket, just leave it conveniently available at home and if you choose to travel away from home and think it might lawfully come in useful, put it in the glove compartment of your car or you luggage. Only get it out when you have a specific need.
I hope that clarifies a few things.
Best wishes,
Greg
Filterlab
01-11-2008, 07:31
Good post mate, cheers. :)
I tend to agree that they both made a mistake but also do not like the way this has played out in the Media, it just show the media power to build something up very quickly and then let it play out I also believe that in hindsight Ross and Brand should of acted quicker.
Mr Sachs has accepted the apologies and also his grand daughter and I just think this has gone far enough now
What worries me is not the original offence, which was childish and silly (and actually quite funny if you like that sort of thing) but hardly worthy of a national outcry Far more worrying is craven way in which the BBC has capitulated and fired the hugely esteemed controller of Radio 2. The whole point of the BBC is that it does not have to kow-tow to advertisers desperate not to upset the lowest common denominator in the audience, and can take risks that other broadcasters cannot. It follows therefore that the risks will occasionally backfire, but how many commercial broadcasters would have come up with The Goons, Monty Python or Little Britain? All of these are (or were when they first appeared) reviled by the typical right-wing reactionary Daily Mail reading masses who never listened to them at the time but were happy to complain about them, but are now hailed as national treasures. Who in the BBC will dare to take such risks now?
Beechwoods
01-11-2008, 15:51
Far more worrying is craven way in which the BBC has capitulated and fired the hugely esteemed controller of Radio 2.
I agree. Funny old world where a broadcaster with 27 years at the BBC, hugely respected for remaking R2 as a real option for the folks who'd been left behind by Radio 1, gets sacked in favour of a hugely overpaid chat-show host... She was even on holiday at the time IIRC.
pure sound
01-11-2008, 17:52
Both Brand and Ross committed offences under the following legislation.
Malicious Communications Act 1998.
Sec 43, Telecommunications Act 1984.
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
Human Rights Act 1988.
Penalty, 6 months imprisonment or fine not exceeding level 5.
Thanks Greg. So who would actually decide to prosecute them? The CPS, or do they have to be directed to do it from higher up?
Filterlab
01-11-2008, 20:54
Thanks Greg. So who would actually decide to prosecute them? The CPS, or do they have to be directed to do it from higher up?
Higher than the Crown Prosecution Service?! Now that's high!
pure sound
01-11-2008, 22:03
I don't know! Maybe the home secretary or someone has to give the nod!
Mr Sachs would need to make a formal complaint to the police. His grand-daughter could also do this but I suspect, considering her occupation and lifestyle, this event has been a bit of a publicity promotion for her so whilst she expresses her disgust and ridicules Brands sexual performance in the Sun no doubt for some financial reward, she is also revelling in the publicity and hoping to gain something from it.
On receipt of a complaint, the police are obliged to investigate, gather evidence and identify what offences have been committed. This is their primary role. They no longer make decisions on prosecution albeit they can bring professional influence. The CPS decide whether an offence is complete and direct the outcome beit charge to court, caution, repremand or no further action. According to the CPS decision, the police prepare the file accordingly.
Unfortunately (my opinion) the CPS are now in control. My recent dealings with them over my own investigations has resulted in them making crap decisions or loading me with a volume of bureaucratic work that is of no help to anyone be they defence or prosecutor. All police stations with detention capability now have resident CPS lawyers during office hours. Outside of that we have to use a telephone and fax service which is highly inefficient and time consumming causing police officers to remain on duty well beyond what is necessary. Many CPS lawers are wet behind the ears and actually total wankers. It's not so much about working in partnership as trying to find a way to influence these naive suckers into applying a bit of common sense. OK, rant over. I'm sure you understand my frustrations on this :steam:
Many CPS lawers are wet behind the ears and actually total wankers. It's not so much about working in partnership as trying to find a way to influence these naive suckers into applying a bit of common sense. OK, rant over. I'm sure you understand my frustrations on this :steam:
:lolsign:..... Are you sure that isn't an offence!
Sorry, couldn't resist. Surely you don't have too much longer to endure these 'frustrations' Greg?
pure sound
02-11-2008, 21:30
Does that mean that as Andrew Sachs (or his granddaughter) hasn't formally complained then no crime has been committed? You or me or 30,000 Daily Mail readers taking offence are irrelevant, it has to be Andrew Sachs that formally complains for it to potentially be a crime?
For which offences, besides murder obviously, does the injured party not have to be the one making the complaint for a crime to have been committed?
I'm just interested to know how it works.
:lolsign:..... Are you sure that isn't an offence!
It's not an offence because it is a generalised collective and non-specific statement. If you want to be specific there are other ways of avoiding committing an offence. For instance, as once used towards a police inspector from a lower ranking officer, "If I call you a wanker, that would be an offence. However if I just think you are a wanker, that would not be an offence. I think you are a wanker!" Please don't try this out. I can't guarantee you'll get away with it ;).
Certainly in the Sachs case, the crime has been committed and is complete. The issue is, will the victim(s) support a prosecution or not. Their evidence would be essential to ensure a satisfactory conviction because they were the target of the offence in the first place and the legislation I've referred to requires them to evidence the offence that has been caused to and impacted on them.
Many offences are committed that can only be proceeded with if the victim is willing to engage with the police and make a formal complaint which in essence means they make a recorded statement and are willing to attend court as a witness at a later date. Our experience is that many people don't want to sign up to this process which frustrates the opportunity to prosecute offenders. Just this weekend we dealt with a man who had been stabbed and is very lucky to be alive now. When we went to the hospital to talk to him about the incident and start a proper investigation, he told us to 'F' off. Clearly that is a non starter and something we are used to especially in respect of criminals who often offend against their fellow criminals. In particular, this sort of thing is very common within the illegal drugs industry which incidently is also related to most of the gun crime you read or hear about daily. It maybe that certain offences can be prosecuted regardless of the victims co-operation, but additional supporting evidence would be required. There is legislation to support what is called 'victimless proecution' which is designed by way of example to deal with perpetrators of domestic violence when the victim will not support a court action against their so called 'partner'. Having spent 6 years previously as a Domestic Violence Officer I can assure you that regardless of legislation, without the witness, successful prosecution is very rare.
Some offences are simply against the Crown (Queen/State). We don't necessarily need victims here to support a prosecution. An example being the cultivation of cannabis which these days is done on a factory basis, or the simple possession of a Class A drug (Heroin/Crack/Cocaine etc).
I hope that helps.
aquapiranha
02-11-2008, 22:22
Blown out of all proportion IMO. What should have happened is the sacking of the two plebs from the radio, and a quiet apology to those offended. As it is, it seems there is no such thing as bad publicity, and you can be sure that brand and the other one will be commanding higher fees off the back of this noteriety. And as for the young "lady" they insulted, well, looks like the same thing about publicity applies to her too...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.