Two of the funniest men in the world at the moment and both have as quick a comedy brain as anyone ever.
They should both be fined about 2k each. |
Originally Posted by angrynorth
(Post 8233446)
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. Spot on :thumb: |
Originally Posted by coolangatta
(Post 8233466)
Sounds nonsensical and desparate IMO.
Admit that you are in the minority on this or at least admit to trolling :freak3: 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. |
Originally Posted by Nat21
(Post 8233462)
They have to provide a wide range of programs, something for everyone. No-one likes everything but everyone likes something :thumb:
I'd pay the licence fee for Planet Earth HD alone. Their Radio output is also extremely good and covers the whole range of programming. |
In case any one has forgot, you're not contributing to Brands/Ross' salary as their shows are on Radio 2 ...which you dont need a licence to listen to
|
Originally Posted by DazW
(Post 8233492)
In case any one has forgot, you're not contributing to Brands/Ross' salary as their shows are on Radio 2 ...which you dont need a licence to listen to
|
Originally Posted by angrynorth
(Post 8233446)
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 |
Originally Posted by angrynorth
(Post 8233486)
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.
. 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 ? |
Originally Posted by Nat21
(Post 8233498)
Fail.
|
Originally Posted by DazW
(Post 8233514)
Err ...fail yourself, Radio licence was abolished in '71 ...if you haven't got a TV & listened to it live, you've just listened to it for free ...hence radio 2's popularity with students ;)
|
Originally Posted by angrynorth
(Post 8233446)
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. |
Originally Posted by angrynorth
(Post 8233486)
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. 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. :Whatever_ |
NOW I'VE HEARD IT ALL :(
""Replace Jonathan Ross's show with Fawlty Towers as a mark of respect for the actor Andrew Sachs" - Tory MP Philip Davies" |
AND now this has come to light
"Well, it seems that Voluptua might know something herself about humiliation - as we've found a recent porn 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 |
|
Originally Posted by angrynorth
(Post 8233486)
As I've said, instead of dragging it through the press, why not just vote with your remote. .
|
So, lets's recap:
Pole dancer from a group called the Satantic Sluts (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" :Whatever_ 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. :thumb: 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! :Whatever_ 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.:brickwall 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! :thumb: 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! :D Ns04 |
Originally Posted by New_scooby_04
(Post 8233583)
So, lets's recap:
Pole dancer from a group called the Satantic Sluts (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! :D Ns04 |
Originally Posted by New_scooby_04
(Post 8233583)
So, lets's recap:
Pole dancer from a group called the Satantic Sluts Ns04 And BDSM porn star don't forget :) |
Sorry - alledged.
|
Originally Posted by Nat21
(Post 8233544)
AND now this has come to light
"Well, it seems that Voluptua might know something herself about humiliation - as we've found a recent porn 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 And, what has that got to do with 'someones' Grandad? |
:D
|
A rather biased account of the situation. Are you a Labour spin doctor? :D
|
There's a joke in there somewhere ;)
I daren't say it! |
I have it on good authowity that Wussel Bwand is innocent. :D
|
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. http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content...4/15133905.jpg |
Originally Posted by angrynorth
(Post 8233598)
++
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...rewyouguys.jpg ;) :D |
Because you mis-spelled whose :D
|
Originally Posted by TelBoy
(Post 8233636)
Because you mis-spelled whose :D
I would have gotten away with it too, had it not been for that pesky Tel! :D |
Originally Posted by angrynorth
(Post 8233632)
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 sluts" and alleged BDSM porn 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 :norty: :D |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:54 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands