'Funny Man' Brand and Whoss ...
30 October 2008, 02:59 PM
#242
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well if the grand daughter hadn't have brought Sachs into it in the first place then he wouldn't have heard anything would he.
Don't give me all this about him being a poor old defenceless old man, and a national hero and all that either.
Who really cares what they earn? They are paid what the BBC determines they are worth and they are far more qualified to make that call than either you or I. Ross in-particular has a very broad appeal and his show is sold worldwide which generates revenue for the BBC.
Clarkson is constantly offensive to plenty of people, but you won't find many on here who will have a go at him, or question his pay.
It seems there is quite a bit of schadenfreude from the British public regarding these two. People are loving watching them suffer and they are constantly justifying their thoughts because they get paid more than most.
You also can't argue they are not accountable, already one has resigned and the other is likely have people turn off his show too.
The point is, you don't have to drag it through the media, house of commons and other public auditoriums, if you don't like them, vote against them with your remote control. There is no need to waste everyones time getting worked up about it when there are greater problems in the UK right now. The BBC would soon chop them (and anyone else they employ) if people turn off.
Don't give me all this about him being a poor old defenceless old man, and a national hero and all that either.
Who really cares what they earn? They are paid what the BBC determines they are worth and they are far more qualified to make that call than either you or I. Ross in-particular has a very broad appeal and his show is sold worldwide which generates revenue for the BBC.
Clarkson is constantly offensive to plenty of people, but you won't find many on here who will have a go at him, or question his pay.
It seems there is quite a bit of schadenfreude from the British public regarding these two. People are loving watching them suffer and they are constantly justifying their thoughts because they get paid more than most.
You also can't argue they are not accountable, already one has resigned and the other is likely have people turn off his show too.
The point is, you don't have to drag it through the media, house of commons and other public auditoriums, if you don't like them, vote against them with your remote control. There is no need to waste everyones time getting worked up about it when there are greater problems in the UK right now. The BBC would soon chop them (and anyone else they employ) if people turn off.
Spot on
30 October 2008, 03:01 PM
#243
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Was Manc now Camden
Posts: 2,689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You accuse me of being nonsensical and desperate because I offer some justification for their "obscene" [sic] wages. You do realise that the BBC is not only funded from your license money don't you? I suggest you look through their annual reports for the past few years so you can get a sense of how much Ross actually generates for them.
As I've said, instead of dragging it through the press, why not just vote with your remote. Watch Friday night with Al the pub landlord on ITV instead or something, they will soon ditch Ross if you do.
30 October 2008, 03:01 PM
#244
Scooby Regular
I have Japanese colleagues who rave about the BBC and wish that they had an equivalent here.
30 October 2008, 03:05 PM
#247
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Terry Crews of moderation. P P P P P P POWER!!
Posts: 18,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The point is, you don't have to drag it through the media, house of commons and other public auditoriums, if you don't like them, vote against them with your remote control. There is no need to waste everyones time getting worked up about it when there are greater problems in the UK right now. The BBC would soon chop them (and anyone else they employ) if people turn off.
Ns04
30 October 2008, 03:12 PM
#248
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have you actually done this ? Does Ross make the bbc a profit ? If so how ? Would love to know as its not like his show is syndicated around the world al la top gear. If you have the copies of bbc's anual reports I would like you to post the bits that mention specifically the 'Wossy' effect. Is there a special 'wossy' profit column listed or are you full of crap ?
30 October 2008, 03:14 PM
#249
30 October 2008, 03:18 PM
#251
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Markyate.Imprezas owned:-wrx-sti5typeR-p1-uk22b-modded my00. Amongst others!
Posts: 8,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't give me all this about him being a poor old defenceless old man, and a national hero and all that either.
Who really cares what they earn? They are paid what the BBC determines they are worth and they are far more qualified to make that call than either you or I. Ross in-particular has a very broad appeal and his show is sold worldwide which generates revenue for the BBC.
Clarkson is constantly offensive to plenty of people, but you won't find many on here who will have a go at him, or question his pay.
It seems there is quite a bit of schadenfreude from the British public regarding these two. People are loving watching them suffer and they are constantly justifying their thoughts because they get paid more than most.
You also can't argue they are not accountable, already one has resigned and the other is likely have people turn off his show too.
The point is, you don't have to drag it through the media, house of commons and other public auditoriums, if you don't like them, vote against them with your remote control. There is no need to waste everyones time getting worked up about it when there are greater problems in the UK right now. The BBC would soon chop them (and anyone else they employ) if people turn off.
30 October 2008, 03:19 PM
#252
Scooby Regular
So just because I disagree with "the majority" on here I am trolling? How predictably narrow-minded of you.
You accuse me of being nonsensical and desperate because I offer some justification for their "obscene" [sic] wages. You do realise that the BBC is not only funded from your license money don't you? I suggest you look through their annual reports for the past few years so you can get a sense of how much Ross actually generates for them.
As I've said, instead of dragging it through the press, why not just vote with your remote. Watch Friday night with Al the pub landlord on ITV instead or something, they will soon ditch Ross if you do.
You accuse me of being nonsensical and desperate because I offer some justification for their "obscene" [sic] wages. You do realise that the BBC is not only funded from your license money don't you? I suggest you look through their annual reports for the past few years so you can get a sense of how much Ross actually generates for them.
As I've said, instead of dragging it through the press, why not just vote with your remote. Watch Friday night with Al the pub landlord on ITV instead or something, they will soon ditch Ross if you do.
The BBC are a 'public broadcasting company'. Notice 'public', it's important.
The BBC have a responsibility as to the way '*your money' is used.*I am not UK resident so do not pay a license fee.
If Ross creates more income than he's paid, so be it. But, as in any business, if his liability is beyond his worth he'll go.
30 October 2008, 03:21 PM
#254
Guest
Posts: n/a
AND now this has come to light
"Well, it seems that Voluptua might know
something herself about humiliation - as we've
found a recent **** movie, in which someone who looks
very much like her is enjoying a good spanking,
Max Mosley style. And the lovely blonde with the
strap-on? Why, is it another celebrity? We're
told she looks a lot like of the dominatrixes from
the recent Max Mosley spanking privacy case. How A-list!"
GOLD
bold added for anti libel/slander purposes
"Well, it seems that Voluptua might know
something herself about humiliation - as we've
found a recent **** movie, in which someone who looks
very much like her is enjoying a good spanking,
Max Mosley style. And the lovely blonde with the
strap-on? Why, is it another celebrity? We're
told she looks a lot like of the dominatrixes from
the recent Max Mosley spanking privacy case. How A-list!"
GOLD
bold added for anti libel/slander purposes
30 October 2008, 03:23 PM
#255
Guest
Posts: n/a
30 October 2008, 03:26 PM
#256
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because the issue is bigger than one incident it refers to the vindictive and cruel nature of many of todays comedians, what effect it has on society and how well the bbc is living up to its remit to use its lack of comercialism to operate at a higher more socially responsable level than commercial broadcasters.
30 October 2008, 03:33 PM
#257
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Terry Crews of moderation. P P P P P P POWER!!
Posts: 18,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, lets's recap:
Pole dancer from a group called the Satantic ***** (granddad would be so proud) sleeps with cockmeister Brand who's career has been largely predicated around his bedroom antics (again, granddad would be very proud) and acts surprised when he brags about it.
Brand and Ross go on a radio show and brag about this on the answerphone of the granddad concerned (Andrew Sachs). A stunt which I personally find to be in poor taste and not funny!
ONLY 2 people (out of an audience of 2 million) see fit to complain. i.e. it was not offensive to the show's usual (and very substantial) audience.
A day later the Daily mail get hold of the story and despite its circulation of x million and all the coverage then given to the "story" on the TV and in other papers, a week later all they can manage is drumming up 30.000 complaints from people who didn't even listen the original show, and most probably, wouldn't normally even listen to it to be offended by any content within.
Interestingly, the person on the butt end of this joke, Andrew Sachs, at no point asks for an apology, nor demands either be sacked, but everyone else complaining is livid "on his behalf"
Both presenters sent a written apology to Sachs, admitting they went too far, showed poor judgment and apologised for offense caused. Both also then issued a public apology, which was very graciously received by Andrew Sachs.
But not the lady concerned, no, she appears in the home of the page 3 girls, the Sun (way to limit damage to your reputations darlin!). Of course, her actions have nothing to do with generating publicity for her own career!
Brand "resigns" so now 2 million people who didn't find him offensive and liked his show have been sidelined because 29,998 people jumping on the bandwagon due to ONE sketch that they deemed poor taste.
Except they haven't. Brand will be back with a new station and his figures will be better than ever as people will be turning in that don't like him as much as those who do for the same reason "To see what he'll say next". So, well done, Daily Mail, at least you've now ensured that you'll have plenty of Brand bandwgons to jump on in the future!
As far as TV/radio exes are concerned, a presenter stands or falls on viewing/listening figures, not by the quality of their character, nor by what they say! Some up-tight folks don't like to admit it, but Brands, erm, brand of humour is popular to many in the country and the simple fact is that many more liked it, or at least didn't feel compelled to complain (even when the stunt was known to pretty much the entire UK population) than were offended!
Does that make something right? No. An apology was in order in this instance in my view - they were out of order.
Does there need to be a witch hunt or sacking? No, it's counter-productive as it only promotes those who the complainants seek to get out of the limelight. The apology that was owed was forthcoming.
The only effective way of getting rid of a celebrity you don't like is simply not to support them by watching/listening to them! They'll soon be axed and in the time that takes you won't be offended by their antics! Everyone wins!
But that's not really what this is about is it. Some people just like to express their moral outrage!
Ns04
Pole dancer from a group called the Satantic ***** (granddad would be so proud) sleeps with cockmeister Brand who's career has been largely predicated around his bedroom antics (again, granddad would be very proud) and acts surprised when he brags about it.
Brand and Ross go on a radio show and brag about this on the answerphone of the granddad concerned (Andrew Sachs). A stunt which I personally find to be in poor taste and not funny!
ONLY 2 people (out of an audience of 2 million) see fit to complain. i.e. it was not offensive to the show's usual (and very substantial) audience.
A day later the Daily mail get hold of the story and despite its circulation of x million and all the coverage then given to the "story" on the TV and in other papers, a week later all they can manage is drumming up 30.000 complaints from people who didn't even listen the original show, and most probably, wouldn't normally even listen to it to be offended by any content within.
Interestingly, the person on the butt end of this joke, Andrew Sachs, at no point asks for an apology, nor demands either be sacked, but everyone else complaining is livid "on his behalf"
Both presenters sent a written apology to Sachs, admitting they went too far, showed poor judgment and apologised for offense caused. Both also then issued a public apology, which was very graciously received by Andrew Sachs.
But not the lady concerned, no, she appears in the home of the page 3 girls, the Sun (way to limit damage to your reputations darlin!). Of course, her actions have nothing to do with generating publicity for her own career!
Brand "resigns" so now 2 million people who didn't find him offensive and liked his show have been sidelined because 29,998 people jumping on the bandwagon due to ONE sketch that they deemed poor taste.
Except they haven't. Brand will be back with a new station and his figures will be better than ever as people will be turning in that don't like him as much as those who do for the same reason "To see what he'll say next". So, well done, Daily Mail, at least you've now ensured that you'll have plenty of Brand bandwgons to jump on in the future!
As far as TV/radio exes are concerned, a presenter stands or falls on viewing/listening figures, not by the quality of their character, nor by what they say! Some up-tight folks don't like to admit it, but Brands, erm, brand of humour is popular to many in the country and the simple fact is that many more liked it, or at least didn't feel compelled to complain (even when the stunt was known to pretty much the entire UK population) than were offended!
Does that make something right? No. An apology was in order in this instance in my view - they were out of order.
Does there need to be a witch hunt or sacking? No, it's counter-productive as it only promotes those who the complainants seek to get out of the limelight. The apology that was owed was forthcoming.
The only effective way of getting rid of a celebrity you don't like is simply not to support them by watching/listening to them! They'll soon be axed and in the time that takes you won't be offended by their antics! Everyone wins!
But that's not really what this is about is it. Some people just like to express their moral outrage!
Ns04
Last edited by New_scooby_04; 30 October 2008 at 03:41 PM.
30 October 2008, 03:37 PM
#258
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Was Manc now Camden
Posts: 2,689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, lets's recap:
Pole dancer from a group called the Satantic ***** (granddad would be so proud) sleeps with cockmeister Brand who's career has been largely predicated around his bedroom antics (again, granddad would be very proud) and acts surprised when he brags about it.
Brand and Ross go on a radio show and brag about this on the answerphone of the granddad concerned (Andrew Sachs).
2 people (out of an audience of 2 million) see fit to complain. i.e. it was not offensive to the show's usual (and very substantial) audience.
A day later the Daily mail get hold of the story and despite its circulation of x million a week later all they can manage is drumming up 30.000 complaints from people who didn't even listen the original show, and most probably, wouldn't normally even listen to it to be offended by any content within.
Interestingly, the person on the butt end of this joke, Andrew Sachs, at no point asks for an apology, nor demands either be sacked, but everyone else complaining is livid "on his behalf"
Both presenters sent a written apology to Sachs, admitting they went too far, showed poor judgement and apologised for offence caused. Both also then issued a public apology, which was very graciously received by Andrew Sachs.
But not the lady concerned, no she appears in the home of the page 3 girls, the Sun (way to limit damage to your reputations darlin!)
Brand "resigns" so now 2 million people who didn't find him offensive and liked his show have been sidelined because 29,998 people jumping on the bandwagon due to ONE sketch that they deemed poor taste.
Except they haven't. Brand will be back with a new station and his figures will be better than ever as people will be turning in that don't like him as much as those who do for the same reason "To see what he'll say next"
As far as TV exes are concerned a presenter stands or falls on how many bums they put on seats, not by the quality of their character, nor by what they say! Some up-tight folks don't like to admit it, but Brands, erm, brand of humour is popular to many in the country and the simple fact is that many more liked it, or at least didn't feel compelled to complain (even when the stunt is know pretty much know to the entire UK population) than were offended!
Does that make something right? No. An apology was in order in this instance in my view.
Does there need to be a witch hunt or sacking? No, it's counterproductive as it only promotes those who the complainants seek to get out of the limelight.
The only effective way of getting rid of a celebrity you don't like is simply not to support them by watching/listening to them! They'll soon be axed and in the time that takes you won't be offended by their antics! Everyone wins!
But that's not really what this is about is it. Some people just like to express their moral outrage!
Ns04
Pole dancer from a group called the Satantic ***** (granddad would be so proud) sleeps with cockmeister Brand who's career has been largely predicated around his bedroom antics (again, granddad would be very proud) and acts surprised when he brags about it.
Brand and Ross go on a radio show and brag about this on the answerphone of the granddad concerned (Andrew Sachs).
2 people (out of an audience of 2 million) see fit to complain. i.e. it was not offensive to the show's usual (and very substantial) audience.
A day later the Daily mail get hold of the story and despite its circulation of x million a week later all they can manage is drumming up 30.000 complaints from people who didn't even listen the original show, and most probably, wouldn't normally even listen to it to be offended by any content within.
Interestingly, the person on the butt end of this joke, Andrew Sachs, at no point asks for an apology, nor demands either be sacked, but everyone else complaining is livid "on his behalf"
Both presenters sent a written apology to Sachs, admitting they went too far, showed poor judgement and apologised for offence caused. Both also then issued a public apology, which was very graciously received by Andrew Sachs.
But not the lady concerned, no she appears in the home of the page 3 girls, the Sun (way to limit damage to your reputations darlin!)
Brand "resigns" so now 2 million people who didn't find him offensive and liked his show have been sidelined because 29,998 people jumping on the bandwagon due to ONE sketch that they deemed poor taste.
Except they haven't. Brand will be back with a new station and his figures will be better than ever as people will be turning in that don't like him as much as those who do for the same reason "To see what he'll say next"
As far as TV exes are concerned a presenter stands or falls on how many bums they put on seats, not by the quality of their character, nor by what they say! Some up-tight folks don't like to admit it, but Brands, erm, brand of humour is popular to many in the country and the simple fact is that many more liked it, or at least didn't feel compelled to complain (even when the stunt is know pretty much know to the entire UK population) than were offended!
Does that make something right? No. An apology was in order in this instance in my view.
Does there need to be a witch hunt or sacking? No, it's counterproductive as it only promotes those who the complainants seek to get out of the limelight.
The only effective way of getting rid of a celebrity you don't like is simply not to support them by watching/listening to them! They'll soon be axed and in the time that takes you won't be offended by their antics! Everyone wins!
But that's not really what this is about is it. Some people just like to express their moral outrage!
Ns04
30 October 2008, 03:40 PM
#261
Scooby Regular
AND now this has come to light
"Well, it seems that Voluptua might know
something herself about humiliation - as we've
found a recent **** movie, in which someone who looks
very much like her is enjoying a good spanking,
Max Mosley style. And the lovely blonde with the
strap-on? Why, is it another celebrity? We're
told she looks a lot like of the dominatrixes from
the recent Max Mosley spanking privacy case. How A-list!"
GOLD
bold added for anti libel/slander purposes
"Well, it seems that Voluptua might know
something herself about humiliation - as we've
found a recent **** movie, in which someone who looks
very much like her is enjoying a good spanking,
Max Mosley style. And the lovely blonde with the
strap-on? Why, is it another celebrity? We're
told she looks a lot like of the dominatrixes from
the recent Max Mosley spanking privacy case. How A-list!"
GOLD
bold added for anti libel/slander purposes
You're a News Of The World senior correspondent.
And, what has that got to do with 'someones' Grandad?
30 October 2008, 03:50 PM
#266
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Was Manc now Camden
Posts: 2,689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
She's pure class this girl, the way she has faded into the background so as not to further her beloved grandfathers embarrassment is admirable. Shunning the celebrity and gutter press machine is a difficult thing to do, she should be admired.
Oh, bugger.
Oh, bugger.
30 October 2008, 03:59 PM
#270
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Terry Crews of moderation. P P P P P P POWER!!
Posts: 18,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone else think its deliciously ironic that the Daily Mail have now been directly responsible for promoting the kiss and tell antics of a pole dancer from the "satanic *****" and alleged BDSM **** star!
Wonder how that sits with their demographic?!?
I'm outraged.....from a strictly moral point of view.
"Ns" prints out picture of lady in question and surreptitiously slips off to toilet" 04
