Viewing Thread:
"Should Russel Brand and Jonathan Ross be fired?"

Ofcom to launch BBC Brand inquiry

I'm sure you've heard about this one. So is an apology enough, or should someone lose their job? Or maybe it's the editors fault for letting it air (three times!) when it should have been cut.

What are your thoughts?

Suspended.

Well, they can't be sued for libel as it appears to be true, so it's just 'upsetting an old man'.

Would it have been the same if they'd have called a member of the public who wasn't a famous actor? Not sure.

The suspension appears to be until the mess is sorted out and will affect Ross's BBC1 show as well as their radio 2 shows.

Garin wrote:
> Yeah Gordon Brown's behaviour is ridiculous. Answering a
> question at a news conference, just what was he thinking? Next
> thing you know he'll be answering questions in parliament on a
> weekly basis.

I just think it would have been better if politicians didn't get involved as I believe it'll affect the investigations into the show. Now OFCOM will feel pressured into making an example out of Ross and Brand because it's such a high profile case. It doesn't exactly make it fair for the broadcasters who's side of the story will be overwhelmed by people complaining because they know high profile politicians are having their say.

Like I was saying earlier I think it should be the producer(s) who get punished, but now it's been made into such a huge deal (not entirely Brown's fault obviously, but he didn't exactly help) the public will want to see real blood i.e. either Ross or Brand sacked. Just seems unfair, and that's not me condoning their actions (see below for my opinion on the matter).

Might not have have been so bad for them if had actually had been funny,but it wasn't.Saying that I couldn't care less if they do get fired to be honest,can't stand either of them.

You're a real comedian gavin ...

Garin you forgot to use the sarcasm tags. Or have the staffies not added them yet?

I don't think they should be sacked, but I do think they should get a 50% pay cut to save us all 10p on our annual television taxes.

Yeah Gordon Brown's behaviour is ridiculous. Answering a question at a news conference, just what was he thinking? Next thing you know he'll be answering questions in parliament on a weekly basis.

Erowid wrote:
> How pathetic that the Prime Minister is wasting any time at all
> even commenting on such trivialities when the country is going to
> the dogs.

Yeah I agree there was no need whatsoever for him to say anything, he's just trying to jump on the bandwagon to win some support.

How pathetic that this incident has had such widespread news coverage.

How pathetic that the Prime Minister is wasting any time at all even commenting on such trivialities when the country is going to the dogs.

How pathetic that 10,000 people have complained when I'd estimate only a small number of these people heard the show when originally aired. Which means they purposefully sought out the broadcast just so they could moan about it.

I think you get the idea.

Brand was covering by the sound of it, after Ross decided to blurt out that Brand had f*** his grand-daughter. But then he took it too far in the second call. Whether they were scripted or not or the second and third calls were just straight off the cuff I don't know.

Full youtube version here of the 3 calls

I think seeing as it was prerecorded if anyone's head is going to roll it should be the person who approved it to be aired. Loads of comedians have odd senses of humour that not everyone is going to find funny (I didn't personally find what they said funny), however Brand might have thought he was appealing to someone. But it should be down to the producer, whose job it is to prevent offensive comments being aired, to not allow it to be put on radio, the presenter just supplies the material. Perhaps he should known better, but it's probably hard for comedians wanting to be different and controversial to draw a decent line. That's where the producer of the show should step in.