Media Forum

Re: Brand has gone should Ross go as well?

MAYNARD-SMITH — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 13:23:25 GMT

£4.5m per year?, about the same as some Premiership footballers, for a career which may be just as short, or about £1 per person in the audience he delivers divided by say 40 shows, about 2.5p per show. How much for Satellite TV subscription? how much to go to the cinema? how much to go to a football match? He entertains a lot of us. If he wanted to make real money he should run a bank into the ground and cause misery for millions - that's where the big bucks are.

Re: Brand has gone should Ross go as well?

Audio Android — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 10:54:59 GMT

The real issue is, and the reason why so many people are jumping off their high horses - is that the majority of the 'audience' are working their butt off for a normal living, struggling to keep the bills payed and keep the food on the table etc ...

So when someone who is paid so much cash you need a fleet of stretched limo's to deliver it, crosses a line - it's - head on a pole time !

Its more to do with jealousy than justice.

- No one really gives a sh*t about the Satanic *** Whore (or whatever she calls herself) and her Grandpa.

Re: Should Russell Brand be sacked by the BBC?

John Mooney — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 14:22:55 GMT

Ross should bite the bullet

just get the bullet.

Re: Should Russell Brand be sacked by the BBC?

Nic Niewart — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:25:08 GMT

Let us remind ourselves of the target audience of Radio 2:

housewives; those at home due to unemployment, incapacity or bereavement; waiting rooms; factories; the receptionists

at northern hair salons ; clinic waiting rooms; So what were these people doing on the channel at all?

Like all people who worm their way into the BBC, they are then there to stay. Ross has three programs. Enough already.

To say nothing of subsequently pulling the entire family into the pension scheme: Dimblebys, Snows, etc

The BBC will say they are there to "make a difference", but with no revenue to chase, as there is no income from

commercials, why are they paying so much for "star" performers: that is the domain of the commercial stations, surely.

The other plain fact is that all the layers of editors, panels, boards etc the ones with interactive fleeces at Bush House,

are a complete waste of space, time effort and licence money. The baldies with narrow glasses wearing black

( much like those at any design shop ) every one with agendas and minority interests.

Then there is the moral stance: Yes I have one. And the BBC used to have one too.

Re: Should Russell Brand be sacked by the BBC?

Eliska Dobson — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 09:21:10 GMT

I beleive that he actually did not say anything anyway, it was Jonathan who shouted it in the background. Obviously, Russell could not do anything about it.

Re: Should Russell Brand be sacked by the BBC?

Peter Martin — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 07:22:25 GMT

Sorry, 'storm in a teacuppers', can't resist the irony of not moving on when advised to by those who post on such issues that we should not have an ongoing opinion on an interesting sociological issue that some don't find comfortable to their pet value sets. All those darn Daily Mail readers! And way to go sisters! The way things do or don't get reported, and emigration decisions, should definitely be based on the lifestyles of near relatives rather than the interactions of the main protagonists. Kid gets shot by gangbangers... well, look as his elder brother. What's the fuss? I think the fact that Ms. Baillie hired our Max (Or did he offer, bearing in mind she was thrust ('scuse the term) into the limelight and would need managing? Not like her life will be quite for a while) is a clincher. She and her granddad concocted this and sent brainwaves (not too many required) to Beavis and his mate to instigate this merry jape. Obvious how trivial it all was by the fallout. Last I heard tabloids can't issue P45s. Anyway Mr. Ross is down 1/6 of his annual salary. That'll help with the executive team bonuses at least. Tiime to draw a line...

Re: Should Russell Brand be sacked by the BBC?

Hugh Bessant — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 21:57:06 GMT

Good grief, what a fuss about nothing. The editorial team should have spiked it before it ever got close to broadcast. Ross and Brand have been hung out to dry when hardly anyone complained before the MoS made it headline news. Of course the Sachs stuff was in bad taste...Brand is rarely ever in good taste...but the only person who needs to go is the person who pressed the red button for broadcast.

I personally dislike Brand, and his public candour about his personal relationships does him little credit, whilst Ross I find mildly amusing. What I love about the BBC is that it has a place for everyone.

We would be better placed discussing the obvious labour bias in news reporting or the shameless insults aimed at my beloved Arsenal by the Moan U and Chelski loving BBC sports department (all except the scousers of course, who hate the gooners for totally different reasons). They are real scandals.

Re: Should Russell Brand be sacked by the BBC?

Tim Lofts — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 21:21:19 GMT

Way to go, David!

It may be because we share some genes that we also share the same view of this pair, who have constantly pushed the boundaries of acceptability in broadcasting. The BBC also has culpability here for not previously reinforcing where the boundaries are - a bit like bad parents not keeping their children in check, which is largely what these two lads are. It should come as no surprise that they keep taking the limit a little further; especially so whe they appear on the same show as they probably wanted to see who'd break first.

Bring back The Navy Lark and be done with them.

Re: Should Russell Brand be sacked by the BBC?

Emmie — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 15:51:48 GMT

No he should not. The current fanfare around a show that was aired more than a week ago, and actually generated only two complaints after the initial broadcast (18.10.08), is shocking. The scale-o-meter of complaints, totting up daily, have mostly been fuelled by a media furore with the Mail leading the way. The fact that apologies have been thick and fast doesn't seem to matter. What is really worrying, is just how over zealous our press pack is. Demands for heads to literally roll is disproportionate to what was committed to air, however distasteful, and has turned this whole sorry episode into a shameful runaway train.

Re: Should Russell Brand be sacked by the BBC?

Sarah Crawley-Boevey — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 15:07:41 GMT

Anyone seen popbitch today and the delightful little snippet on mini-Sachs' day job? If she becomes famous (in the Jodie Marsh sense) off the back of this I'll leave the country. If Sachs had known what little Georgina got up to of an evening I have no doubt he wouldn't have made such a fuss about a joke that, in the context of her lifestyle choices, is apparently fairly appropriate.

Re: Should Russell Brand be sacked by the BBC?

Gabriel Miller — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 14:57:12 GMT

Who would have thought sleeping with a 'satanic ***' could get one into such hot water?

Re: Should Russell Brand be sacked by the BBC?

Eliska Dobson — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 09:03:09 GMT

They have taken their joke to far this time, however they have learnt their lesson now and I think this incident grew out of proportion!

If anyone should be punished, it is BBC. The show was not life and it was the editors responsibility not to let it on air if the joke was inappropriate. Therefore, they cannot punish Russell and Jonathan if the editors thought it was ok to let it out.

And now the grandaughter is trying to cash up on all of this making it for the two great comedians even worse. This whole thing is a disgrace and should just be left alone now.

Re: Should Russell Brand be sacked by the BBC?

Peter Martin — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 07:27:15 GMT

Too right, and only two complained originally. Perhaps what's needed is events can only be reported, and especially complained about if you are on the spot in the room and hear/see it all live. I guess Harold Shipman and those tinkers at Nuremberg would have agreed (no, there is no equivalence other than in the logic of the way news is gathered, shared and reacted to by society). Careful what you wish for. The 'But that's different' caveat can often prove wanting, quickly. And some telling others that their thinking is only at the hands of others can often prove counter-productive. Especially when the presumption is that they should instead be thinking the 'right' way as espoused by the author. So we now have a bit of a mess. I'm not too concerned about Beavis and his mate (who actually has at last proven quite dignified) as they do have talent and will survive. And as one who has said a few things in the studio that were not for broadcast I think what is meant to stay in the can stays in the can. But the kids will, I am sure, have plenty to get excited about their fallen hero now, and I'll agree with some. However, my thoughts turn to a 25 year old producer who is currently staring at a glass of whisley and a loaded Webley. While all his bosses seem to have acquired collective amnesia, locked themselves in the loo or pulled a sickie. But this would never happen now in the commercial world. Junior writer pens a piece of dire copy that's whisked by an AE to the studio to be recorded and slipped through... as it's 'edgy'. And a barge of manure then rams a windmill. Fired? They'll be on the board! In another company admittedly...

Re: Should Russell Brand be sacked by the BBC?

MAYNARD-SMITH — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 18:10:24 GMT

18,000? 8,000 last night? To paraphrase Clint Eastwood "What took them so long to get angry?" I should be interested to know how many of the 18,000 actually heard the broadcast live (in context) and how many have responded independently, off their own bat, and not in response to orchestrated urging.

Re: Should Russell Brand be sacked by the BBC?

Peter Martin — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 16:51:22 GMT

Calm down, dears. It's only a tabloid frenzy, stoked by, now let's see... who posed the questions at the top in this way? ps: at least it has all served to get the 'you.... you... you're just a Daily Mail reader" riposte knocked out of credible exchanges on personal opinion in future, for which I am truly grateful.