10.30.08

Ross and Brand

Posted in Uncategorized at 8:16 pm by Sarah

ok ok I can’t resist it.

The BBC is a disgrace.

Forcing Brand out because The Daily Mail and The Sun complained, ONE WEEK AFTER the original broadcast. I listened to it. It’s stupid and crude but funny in places. Just like Brand and Ross.

Sach’s agent only complained AFTER the Mail on Sunday told her about the call.

When is the BBC going to get over David Kelly? The report was RIGHT. How ’bout some steel in your spine?? Being pushed around by Alistair Campbell is one thing. But the Mail????

Oh please.

20 Comments

  1. harry the hare said,

    October 30, 2008 at 9:00 pm

    Well said! Could not agree more.

  2. V said,

    October 30, 2008 at 10:31 pm

    I loved the way Sky News kept talking about the thousands who called in, as if they had done it before and not after the mail ran the piece. I expected a breaking news arrow pointing to an ‘outrage counter’.

  3. Sarah said,

    October 31, 2008 at 1:51 am

    Yeah its this whole thing where there is one person who actually was offended (Sachs) and the thousands who decided to get offended on his behalf after they were told to by a crap newspaper.

    One other thing: You know when you get a voicemail, you only have about 10-15 seconds to leave a message before there’s a beep. You never hear the beep on those tapes. They go on and on and call back and go on and on and maybe I missed it BUT I never heard the beep. I’m thinking a) Sachs only ever heard the first couple of lines of each message or b) the messages were never left ie the producer cut the line.

    Personally I blame the producer. It was PRE-RECORDED. Who decided to let it play?

  4. Liam said,

    October 31, 2008 at 12:27 pm

    I heard this morning that Ross and Brand have been arrested.

    They’ve been placed on the Sachs Offenders List.

    Boom, boom.

    Sorry, Sarah.

  5. V said,

    October 31, 2008 at 1:54 pm

    Ha Ha! I’d say there may have been no beep because the producer always intended to put it out. Who cares, I hope this goes away soon but I’m sure the mail and others will sue for Thompson’s head, chalk one up for the enemy.

  6. Niall said,

    October 31, 2008 at 3:38 pm

    You know, I was thinking about this and I think that the men were wrong to do what they did, but Sachs made his living from being offensive. I love Fawlty Towers, but Manuel is hardly PC. I doubt most Irish people found the Irish builder quite as funny as they found the bumbling Spaniard.

  7. b said,

    October 31, 2008 at 5:35 pm

    Seriously, who is offended by Fawlty Towers? After 32 years maybe its time to drop the rightous indignation.

    These two rang up a guy and goaded him that one of them shagged his granddaugther. This may be true but its not something that a private individual needs to be told over the airways.

    They should have apologised and kept their jobs. This furore blew up because people needed something else to latch onto that wasn’t financial armageddon.

  8. \Dave the Donkey said,

    October 31, 2008 at 9:15 pm

    “I doubt most Irish people found the Irish builder quite as funny as they found the bumbling Spaniard”

    Actually your wrong! I found that character excellent! His few scenes were hilarious.

  9. Niall said,

    November 1, 2008 at 1:05 pm

    Um, Dave. I’m mildly hungover so I’m probably really going into this far too much.

    1. I said ‘most Irish people’. I did not say ‘all’ Irish people.

    2. I did not say that the builder was unfunny. I said that Irish people probably didn’t find that character quite AS funny as they did Manuel – personally, I’m a little, and I do mean a little, uneasy with the the fact that the only Irish character to appear on the show was shown as a ‘lazy’, ‘incompetent’, ‘half-witted, thick Irish joke’ who drank Guinness. Now of course that in itself doesn’t make the show racist. The O’Reilly character is quite funny and there’s nothing wrong with showing Irish characters acting like lazy buffoons. But when you consider that the show was originally aired in 1970s Britain at a time when you still saw signs that said ‘No Blacks, No Dogs, No Irish’ and that O’Reilly was probably one of the only Irish characters on British television at that time, it makes it a LITTLE bit more difficult to laugh. O’Reilly is a stereotype, and not an entirely benign one.

    Back to your post. The fact that you find it funny does not invalidate what I said earlier since it in no way contradicts my statement.

  10. V said,

    November 1, 2008 at 2:49 pm

    Two characters have formed most Irish and English peoples ideas of the Hispanic type, ‘Manuel’ and ‘The Fast Show’ but that by itself does not cause people to have negative views of Spaniards or to have no knowledge of Spain outside the Costas. There’s a will to ignorance involved also.

  11. Darren J. Prior said,

    November 1, 2008 at 3:43 pm

    I for one listened to it and got as far as the bit about his granddaughter and found it way over the top.

  12. omaniblog said,

    November 1, 2008 at 8:55 pm

    On a point of detail: I don’t think it’s accurate to say that Britain in the 1970s was loaded with signs saying “No Irish, or dogs”. I lived and worked there full time from 1975, in London, and those signs were no where. I think they were there in the 1960s. I was treated respectfully by Londoners, even while I was on duty in public during the bombings. I had a recognisable Irish accent, and was never the victim of racial abuse. I’d have been ferociously alert to any such disrespect.

    The idea that someone from the BBC should ring up a retired celebrity and go on about what they’d done sexually with his daughter is almost unbelievable, and in extraordinary poor taste. Of course, it became a matter of public indignation when the newspaper highlighted it: isn’t that what we value so much about media – their role in exposing bad behaviour. I haven’t followed the detail of this incident but I’m shocked at the behaviour of two otherwise intelligent men.

  13. Electron said,

    November 3, 2008 at 10:47 am

    Omaniblog, I agree, I was in London much earlier than you and I never came across any such signs. The Irish always had icons like Eamonn Andrews, Dave Allen, George Best, and Terry Wogan later on, to carry the flag. Although George Best was from the north, he never went by anything other than Irish. The only people you had to watch, were first and second generation Irish from the south, some of these had serious hang-ups and could be dodgy. One first generation guy that I worked alongside, never spoke to me directly for fear that he’d be classed as Irish and would only communicate through our project leader who was third generation and whose family had changed the spelling of their name to disguise its origin. But, when I told him the we considered his name to have originated in Wales, he was totally devastated.The ultimate Irish joke!

  14. TomN said,

    November 3, 2008 at 10:58 am

    Perhaps the BBC should have a yellow card / red card system like football referees. For serious but non malicious offences a yellow card should be shown. For something worse, a red card.
    I do believe that there should have been some punishment and that there is no accounting for bad taste. Like the footballers, if they fine them a week’s wages, and suspend them for six weeks, that might be a more appropriate response than a crucifiction.

  15. b said,

    November 3, 2008 at 11:53 am

    I think we need to sort out the State controlled watery and decadant RTE before we cast stones in the BBC direction.

  16. Sarah said,

    November 3, 2008 at 12:07 pm

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/03/jonathan-ross-russell-brand

    Great commentary from Brooker.

  17. Donal said,

    November 4, 2008 at 3:25 pm

    The BBC report about David Kelly was NOT right, as Sarah says in the original blog. It was wrong, and it was found to be wrong by an independent investigation conducted by Hutton. Andrew Gilligan was a disgrace to journalism, especially in the way he betrayed his source.

    I love the way all the media types hang together. It would be an act of “good authority”, as Eoghan Harris would say, if someone in the media would stand up and say “The BBC has got it wrong again – wrong on sexed up dossiers, wrong to broadcast a snide routine in which a 78-year-old was bullied and insulted by two over-paid yobs.”

  18. Electron said,

    November 5, 2008 at 12:43 am

    Donal, the BBC has to cater for a very broad brief because of its public funding – okay it slips up on the editorial side every now and then and in the main some heads roll – unlike here. It’s huge and truly the world’s best broadcaster when it comes to standards in technical and production – no other broadcaster attempts to cover such a broad range of interests. The odd slip-up is inevitable, but it would be a shame to pull it down over such a few errors. The people involved in this incident, including Andrew Sachs have all been into the oxygen of publicity, so its not as serious as it would have been if it were some ordinary joe blogs who was at the receiving end of those calls.

  19. Dan Sullivan said,

    November 5, 2008 at 9:45 pm

    I wonder how many old blokes have found out that their grand daughter had shagged some footballer or celebrity bad boy in the pages of the Mail or Sun but that’s ok I guess.

  20. tedob said,

    November 7, 2008 at 2:04 pm

    Presumably it would be more upsetting to have one of your grand-daughter’s liasons feature prominently in a week-long tabloid campaign than to have it mentioned on a radio show where only two listeners got offended enough to complain and the rest had probably forgotten about the segment by the end of the show.

Bad Behavior has blocked 859 access attempts in the last 7 days.