Just thought, wasn't it Brand's own production company who was responsible for this.
Printable View
Just thought, wasn't it Brand's own production company who was responsible for this.
Yeah, wot he said.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Rather more succinctly than me.
Nice old chap Andrew Sachs too. When I lived in Bath many moons ago we took in EFL students and had a lovely Catalonian lass staying with us. She went to see a play in the theatre in Bath which featured Sachs. She met him afterwards and they conversed - she was completely charmed by him.
True story!
Never really been a fan of Brand or Woss btw.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
The BBC would have had the ultimate edit/green light.
and they pay the leccy billQuote:
Originally Posted by chaliceQuote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
The BBC would have had the ultimate edit/green light.
Good point. The very least they are guilty of is not monitoring the material to be broadcast thoroughly enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by chaliceQuote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
The BBC would have had the ultimate edit/green light.
I posted the Sadowitz link on the Groaniard board but bar stewards modded me.
Outrage!
I take it they didn't like Chavis' work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggles
Who does?Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaulI take it they didn't like Chavis' work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggles
When they do, I'll stop.
It presumably broke some rule or other. I confess I never read their rules when I joined.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaulI take it they didn't like Chavis' work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggles
Censored by the Guardian - oh the irony!
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaulGood point. The very least they are guilty of is not monitoring the material to be broadcast thoroughly enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by chalice
It went up to a senior member of staff for it to be approved. The BBC knew exactly what was being broadcast.
These two are getting paid so much just because they dare to be controversial, that's not a secret. As I see it, they were doing what their employers expected them to do do, and quite obviously agreed with.
Sachs today on the radio said that he doesn't want to take the matter any further and had received apologies from both of them. If that's enough for him, than why shouldn't it be for the rest of the public?
There is a moral crusade on the wing and people scent blood - Sachs is being a spoilsport with his gentlemanly ways.
It's not up to him whether there behaviour was acceptable or not. He is just being a dignified gentleman. The opposite of them which was two puerile bullies, picking on and humiliating an old man.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkweekyQuote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
It went up to a senior member of staff for it to be approved. The BBC knew exactly what was being broadcast.
These two are getting paid so much just because they dare to be controversial, that's not a secret. As I see it, they were doing what their employers expected them to do do, and quite obviously agreed with.
Sachs today on the radio said that he doesn't want to take the matter any further and had received apologies from both of them. If that's enough for him, than why shouldn't it be for the rest of the public?
The point is, I paid them to do this and I'm disgusted by it. It's not like Brand on stage and you can choose to go or not go. They used my money to carry pick on a 78 year old. No, not for me I'm afraid.
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by BigglesIt presumably broke some rule or other. I confess I never read their rules when I joined.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Censored by the Guardian - oh the irony!
Maybe the speeling was two good.
[quote=JPaul;3016761]No-one wants to see anyone carry pick on anyone else, fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skweeky
:unsure:
Fucking hell, "The Killers" were going to be on Jonathan Woss on friday, I would have enjoyed that :angry:
Jonathan Woss. Selfish arrogant cunt. :angry:
They should just let The Killers play for an hour on friday night, after the news.
That would be kind of awesome :)
I don't like The Killers. Their new song is absolutely shite.
'Are we human or are we dancers?'
WTF???
It's 'are we human or are we denser'. But yes, it's fucking shite.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skweeky
It sounds like Chris De Burgh taking a shite on Simple Minds only worse.
You're both wrong :snooty:
Also, I'm going to see Simple Minds live in November, so shurrup. :pinch:
:lol:
That's terrible Barbie. Seriously. Start listening to some decent music.
it was just a joke
Your face is just a joke.
Ross has been suspended for 12 weeks without pay and the controller of Radio 2 has resigned.
True story.
Good
Has the parliament had a discussion over it yet? It's obviously really fucking important if it has to come to that :dry:
They did what they did on the BBC, funded by the licence payers. It's the British national broadcaster. As such it was appropriate for them to be involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skweeky
Had it been another broadcaster I would agree with you but in this instance I don't. The point isn't how important it was, it was how it was funded and the 27,000 complaints made by the people who paid for it.
This is the important bit.
It's not just another company, Skweeky.Quote:
The BBC is constitutionally established by a Royal Charter. An accompanying Agreement recognises its editorial independence and sets out its public obligations in detail.
The current Royal Charter was granted to the BBC on 19 September 2006. It took full effect from 1 January 2007.
The text of the Royal Charter and Agreement are available on the BBC Trust site.
I have to disagree.
1 . There's loads of stuff on the beeb that I'd rather not see my money spent on. It's a matter of taste and opinion.
2. I am more concerned about the fact that money was spent on paying politicians to give their opinions on this.
3. 27000 complaints were made only after the whole media circus that was made out of it. The original broadcast received two complaints.
4. 27000 out of a population on 60 million is not even 0.05 of a percent. Since when does the government give a hoot about that small a percentage?
It never should've been blown out of proportion like this. Worse things are said and done on telly on a daily basis.
Tell me what you've heard worse on BBC radio please.
Politicians discussed it because they operate under a Royal Charter. In effect they represent the Government. I think it being discussed was perfectly reasonable.
It doesn't matter when the complaints were made, the point is they were. The percentage argument is nonsense. You would have to compare the 27,000 to what level of complaints one normally gets. That's in the hundreds as I understand it.
They phoned a 78 year old man and left a message on his answering machine that one of them had fucked his granddaughter. Phoned him back three times with more pish. Then broadcast it to the nation. You hear worse things on the telly on a daily basis. On the BBC, I think not.
No sorry, Skweeky. I'm absolutely certain you don't hear worse things on the BBC on a daily basis.
They phoned someone whose main claim to fame is a character that rips the pish out of the Spanish in a program that used Nazi Germany as a comical element.
That in itself I find more offensive that a prank call that got out of hand.
Last year there was the whole Preston incident on Nevermind the Buzzcocks. No matter how funny that was, I'm sure Preston himself didn't like the fact that his wife was being portrayed as a dumb blonde bimbo (even if she is). It never went this far because it only involved a minor celebrity.
Moyles makes inappropriate comments about people all the time. The Nicola thing to start with, and everyone else who doesn't agree with him at that point in time.
What is the difference in making fun of someone on national radio or making fun of someone you are related to? There is none in my opinion.
And yes, the man is 78 years old. Everyone keeps saying that as if it is a horrible disease and makes him somehow less of a human being.
I have nothing against any of the parties involved. I like Sachs and I think what he did in Fawlty Towers was funny, if not PC. I also like Brand's and Ross' humour.
My point is; I am not disputing that fact that Sachs had a right to be upset about or not.
I am addressing the fact that:
1. The complaints were media fuelled. The only reason they received this many is because it was broadcasted over and over again. There was no need for that if everyone agreed it was in bad taste.
2. It was a prank gone wrong and nothing but that. People are trying to make a huge ethical debate out of it, and it really isn't. The whole thing turned into a witch hunt.
3. The arguments about 'this was being paid for by license payers' is moot in my opinion. How many people like everything and everyone that is on the radio on tv?
But anyway, I am too tired now to discuss this any further (I am being kicked in the kidneys, you see), so on this occasion, I propose we agree to disagree.
I agree.
To disagree like.
:lol:
Damn!
:P :naughty:
You missed me grooming you in the other thread btw. :snooty:
How could you be grooming me if I missed it.
That's mad talk.
It was grooming directed at you, Kev and Les. Only you weren't there.
Fail to the epic then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skweeky
Well, Kev admitted to owning a red and black check shirt. Which confirms all our suspicions as far as I am concerned :yes:
You would have got such a grooming if you had been there though. :yup:Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaulFail to the epic then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skweeky