Just listened to the Andrew Sachs phonecall

Dudess · 01-11-2008 01:59PM

How do you think it might be offensive, javaboy?

Mark200 · 01-11-2008 02:00PM

Turd Ferguson wrote: »

Why should there be a line?

Well to be fair, the BBC is paid for by tax payers in the UK. It should be a lot more strict about these things than other radio stations that pay for themselves.

It's stupid though. As said a few times already, there were like 2 complaints before the story reached the news. It's like that whole thing with Jade Goody in Big Brother. Although what she did is a lot worse than the prank call, the majority of the complaints about her didn't come in until after it was on the news.

Turd Ferguson · 01-11-2008 02:06PM

Mark200 wrote: »

It's stupid though. As said a few times already, there were like 2 complaints before the story reached the news. It's like that whole thing with Jade Goody in Big Brother. Although what she did is a lot worse than the prank call, the majority of the complaints about her didn't come in until after it was on the news.

Thats cos nobody gives a shit about BB. Nobody watched it and nobody cared. No harm done, except to the Aisan one but that would have been delt with in its own way without it being an "international scandal".

javaboy · 01-11-2008 02:06PM

Turd Ferguson wrote: »

Because its a show that these people never listen to. They are not the target audience. The people who the show is designed for and who it appeals to did not find it offensive and THEY also pay their licence fees and now THEY cannot listen to Brand or Ross anymore.

I didn't say they should have been sacked or even suspended. I think the BBC handled it badly tbh. They should have used similar arguments to the one your using about the target demographic not actually being offended.

Personally I don't think the complaints should carry as much weight when coming from people who don't listen to the show but at the same time I don't think they should be ignored either.

Like I said earlier, if RTÉ were showing 'funny' pictures and videos from the likes of rotten.com at 4 in the morning when I don't watch telly, I still have the right to complain about it if I want.

Dudess wrote: »

How do you think it might be offensive, javaboy?

I dunno ask the 30,000 who complained.

Seriously though I didn't find it particularly offensive but I can understand how some older people would.

DarkJager · 01-11-2008 02:15PM

javaboy wrote: »

Like I said earlier, if RTÉ were showing 'funny' pictures and videos from the likes of rotten.com at 4 in the morning when I don't watch telly, I still have the right to complain about it if I want.

No you don't. How can you possibly form a valid complaint against something you didn't see or hear? Just because somebody else tells you about it? This licence payer bull**** is a wafer thin excuse to disguise that 30000 people in Britain consider themselves to be ****ing angels..

Dudess · 01-11-2008 02:15PM

Nasty and underhanded maybe, but offensive no (imo).

i_love_toast · 01-11-2008 02:18PM

i am absolutely raging that this has gone so far!!!cop on for f*ck sake i hate the rags and as usually everyone read the papers absolutely blown out story believed it.the daily mail the other day said"arrest them!"...arrest them for f*cking what??
andrew sachs used to work john clease who was a member of the monthy python who in the 70's released"the life of brian"which in its day was majorly blasphemous and do you think many people got sacked for that???
its mad how this is still going on.grand it was bad but jesus christ like.in the papers i read that they said"i hope he kills himself"...total lie!i f*cking hate the rags!!

ART6 · 01-11-2008 02:23PM

Surely there is an issue here? Make such remarks to someone's face if you wish (and possibly get your head punched in for the privalege). Say it in public, during a public show transmission, and it is offensive. If the juvenile Ross had said that about my daughter I wouldn't complain, but I might just punch his b****y head in.

Turd Ferguson · 01-11-2008 02:29PM

I wonder what would happen if 300,000 people complained to the BBC that they will miss the next 12 weeks of Ross' show and that they pay their money too.

DarkJager · 01-11-2008 02:31PM

Turd Ferguson wrote: »

I wonder what would happen if 300,000 people complained to the BBC that they will miss the next 12 weeks of Ross' show and that they pay their money too.

30000 people should make complaints about Songs Of Praise for using the word "Christ", which is offensive to atheists. That might make the 30000 who complained about this feel exactly like the whiny little ***** they are. 30000 people with extremely non eventful sad lives...

Turd Ferguson · 01-11-2008 02:32PM

DarkJager wrote: »

30000 people with extremely non eventful sad lives...

Sounds like Daily Mail readers alright...

Jazzy · 01-11-2008 02:58PM

Zillah wrote: »

You have, unlike most of humanity, been blessed with a full keyboard. I'm sure yourself and it can get along fine if only you'd try. There are children in Africa and South East Asia who get keyboards with nothing more than an F, the left arrow and a hyphen.

They still come across as more literate than you.

u try typing when u have drank ur own weight in rum. i think i made a bloody valiant effort here considering my state.

i still stand by wat i said tho. the ppl that "took offence" to it should be taken out of the gene pool

ShagNastii · 01-11-2008 03:48PM

Right, I haven't commented on any of the two millions thread started about this topic.

First things first, I'm an avid viewer of Ross' Friday night show which is always top class and think Russell Brand is one of the funniest comic alive today. And listen to his podcasts alot.

I think the people do have merit in their complaints. We've all ****ed somebodies Granddaugther/son but I wouldn't call their Grandparents on national radio and broadcast it to the masses. I must add if the daily mail didn't publish the article none of this would have been blown out of proportion. And "lady" in question wouldn't have the press she so eagerly courts.

asdasd · 01-11-2008 03:58PM

don't think the morally outraged brigade and the PC brigade are one and the same. The morally outraged brigade tends to get outraged by stuff the PC brigade stands up for...

Just a different type of moral outrage. Same type of people. I am sure were Sachs black, and the statements were racist you would be in uncontrollable moral outrage right now.

Most people here are missing the point. Had Brand - who is a moron - just made the remarks on air and not on the answering machine of a 73 year old it would have blown over as the typical kind of "funny" Brand gets up to ( I 'ad sex wi' is granddaughter, innit). Sachs was not listening, after all.

However calling up an octogenarian and leaving messages about having sex with his grand-daughter is a form of harassment, and if you don't believe that try a thought experiment where your grandparents are continually getting messages about the sexual activity of their grandchildren. Clearly you would call the police. This thing would be offensive even if not broadcast. Sachs could then have released the tapes from this answering machine.

If Sachs complains he may yet get a criminal case.

phasers · 01-11-2008 04:02PM

asdasd wrote: »

However calling up an octogenarian and leaving messages about having sex with his grand-daughter is a form of harassment, and if you don't believe that try a thought experiment where your grandparents are continually getting messages about the sexual activity of their grandchildren. Clearly you would call the police. This thing would be offensive even if not broadcast. Sachs could then have released the tapes from this answering machine.

If Sachs complains he may yet get a criminal case.

Sachs has said he isn't taking it further and an apology was all he wanted, which he received. He has moved on, why can't everyone else? He didn't want this attention, even if his media-whore granddaughter is loving it.

asdasd · 01-11-2008 04:12PM

Sachs has said he isn't taking it further and an apology was all he wanted, which he received. He has moved on, why can't everyone else? He didn't want this attention, even if his media-whore granddaughter is loving it.

Ok, so it is only not going to be a criminal act because the victim did not want to pursue. It still had the potential to be worth a caution, or an ABSO were the perpetrators not rich middle aged guys. Were they poor 15 year olds it would be investigated, surely.

So the moral outrage was justified. The difference between a a joke and bullying is the status of the victim, and the mechanism of delivery. A joke on stage about Irish people is a joke, leaving Irish jokes on a Irish workmates answering machine is harassment.

( if we are in England like Brand et al.)

Obvious stuff.

30txsbzmcu2k9w · 01-11-2008 04:16PM

Its a true testament to the media setting the agenda. Sky News were like a dog with a bone on this one, rotating the story every 15 minutes. Big chance to put some dirt on the BBC. And people just lap it up.

I was listening to the Moncrieff show on Newstalk yesterday (or thursday) and some wagon was on talkin about it all high and mighty. and she had the gall to call Russell Brand ill-educated! Pretty obvious she's never actuallly listened to the man talk.
A clear example of misinformed tabloid reading drone spewing out nonsense to more of the same.

javaboy · 01-11-2008 04:17PM

DarkJager wrote: »

No you don't. How can you possibly form a valid complaint against something you didn't see or hear?

That's ridiculous imo. So if I'm paying a TV license and part of that money goes towards funding something I find offensive, I have no right to complain? BBC like getting feedback. They even have a program called points of view just for feedback and complaints.

This licence payer bull**** is a wafer thin excuse to disguise that 30000 people in Britain consider themselves to be ****ing angels..

I can't speak for the motives of the 30,000 who complained and the Daily Hatemail has obviously stirred this shit up but I still defend the right of people to complain about things they find offensive if they are paying to fund it.

Turd Ferguson wrote: »

I wonder what would happen if 300,000 people complained to the BBC that they will miss the next 12 weeks of Ross' show and that they pay their money too.

They should tbh.

asdasd · 01-11-2008 04:20PM

Pretty obvious she's never actually listened to the man talk.

Quote some marvellous lines from Brand. Of course he is a moron. An inarticulate unfunny moron who appeals to morons.

A clear example of misinformed tabloid reading drone spewing out nonsense to more of the same.

The Guardian, Times and most of the broadsheets were anti-Brand as well. In any case it is clear from this thread that, in general, idiots support Brand.

Count the punctuation errors in this piece.

i am absolutely raging that this has gone so far!!!cop on for f*ck sake i hate the rags and as usually everyone read the papers absolutely blown out story believed it.the daily mail the other day said"arrest them!"...arrest them for f*cking what??
andrew sachs used to work john clease who was a member of the monthy python who in the 70's released"the life of brian"which in its day was majorly blasphemous and do you think many people got sacked for that???
its mad how this is still going on.grand it was bad but jesus christ like.in the papers i read that they said"i hope he kills himself"...total lie!i f*cking hate the rags!!

javaboy · 01-11-2008 04:22PM

Arian Cool Wage wrote: »

she had the gall to call Russell Brand ill-educated! Pretty obvious she's never actuallly listened to the man talk.
A clear example of misinformed tabloid reading drone spewing out nonsense to more of the same.

But he is ill-educated. It's not that he lacks an education by any means. He definitely knows a lot of big words but often completely misuses them and I don't think it's for comic effect.

phasers · 01-11-2008 04:23PM

asdasd wrote: »

In any case it is clear from this thread that, in general, idiots support Brand. .

Why do you have to insult people in the thread? We are all entitled to our views on the issue. There's no need to stoop to name calling.

javaboy · 01-11-2008 04:27PM

phasers wrote: »

Why do you have to insult people in the thread? We are all entitled to our views on the issue. There's no need to stoop to name calling.

Oh the irony is delicious.

Turd Ferguson · 01-11-2008 04:28PM

javaboy wrote: »

That's ridiculous imo. So if I'm paying a TV license and part of that money goes towards funding something I find offensive, I have no right to complain?

No, not unless you actually watched it. Its just unreasonable to think that every single show on TV and radio should not offend anyone in the World.

DarkJager · 01-11-2008 04:29PM

javaboy wrote: »

That's ridiculous imo. So if I'm paying a TV license and part of that money goes towards funding something I find offensive, I have no right to complain? BBC like getting feedback. They even have a program called points of view just for feedback and complaints.

I don't see why you would complain about something that didn't directly offend you in the first place. If you didn't see it first hand but heard about from what other people were telling you, I fail to see how you would get up in arms about it? I pay my licence fee as well and tbh, if something offensive was shown on a channel, I couldn't really care less. What the channel broadcasts is up to them.Its there for me to watch or listen to when I want, but just because I pay the fee doesn't mean I have to be a moral crusader anytime they do something I don't agree with..

javaboy · 01-11-2008 04:32PM

Turd Ferguson wrote: »

No, not unless you actually watched it. Its just unreasonable to think that every single show on TV and radio should not offend anyone in the World.

You're missing the point. I'm not suggesting that BBC should have pulled the show based on the complaints. They should take into account the timing of the complaints and given the actual volume of complaints less weight as a result of the Daily Hatemail coverage the issue received.

I'm simply defending the right of those people to complain.

Turd Ferguson · 01-11-2008 04:43PM

javaboy wrote: »

I'm simply defending the right of those people to complain.

I dont think they had a right to complain at all. They didnt hear the programme until the paper told them to. If they were regular listeners then yes, but the only reason they listened was so they could get angry and complain. They seeked it out themselves so they had no right to complain. They may pay their licence fees but so do the people that listen and love the show.

ShagNastii · 01-11-2008 04:44PM

Whilst I'm here can someone explain the whole Shock-Jock thing in america and how they pretty much can do and say anything within reason ALA Howard Stern and Bubba the love sponge

Turd Ferguson · 01-11-2008 04:48PM

ShagNastii wrote: »

Whilst I'm here can someone explain the whole Shock-Jock thing in america and how they pretty much can do and say anything within reason ALA Howard Stern and Bubba the love sponge

Because people know what they are getting into when they tune in so nobody gets offended when they get insulted or abused cos its like "Ah well, I kinda thought that would happen. This is Howard Stern after all"

ShagNastii · 01-11-2008 04:51PM

Turd Ferguson wrote: »

Because people know what they are getting into when they tune in so nobody gets offended when they get insulted or abused cos its like "Ah well, I kinda thought that would happen. This is Howard Stern after all"

Isn't it blatently obivous to these people, Brand falls into the same catagory!

asdasd · 01-11-2008 04:52PM

Oh the irony is delicious.

Yeah the only reason I came to name-calling was based on the attitudes of the pro-Brand supporters about the "stupidity" of the people who complained.

As for Howard Stern he has been tken off the air, fired from his job, banned in certain States, and fined numerous times. For that reason he is now on Satellite.

The U.S, enforces standards even when all broadcasters are commercial. This is the practice in Europe too. The idea is that the broadcast frequencies are a limited resource and can be policed. Satellite is not considered a broadcast ( more a narrow cast). that should be the route for Brand.

Just listened to the Andrew Sachs phonecall

Comments