Not only but also…
Did you read about Wossy and Russell Brands latest on-air prank? These stars in the BBC firmament thought it would be hilarious to make obscene phone calls to 78-year-old Fawlty Towers actor Andrew Sachs. They left a series of lewd messages on Mr Sachs’s answer phone claiming, in shockingly explicit language, that Brand had had sex with his granddaughter, Georgina. Sachs was left deeply upset by the crude calls – which were also broadcast to about two million listeners to Brand’s Radio 2 show.
In a way, such crudity is all we can expect from the likes of Ross and Brand so quelle surprise but the real killer for me is that senior BBC executives cleared the offensive messages for broadcast, even though making abusive phone calls is a criminal offence. The dysfunctionality of the BBC lies not ONLY in sustained left-wing bias but ALSO in unfettered vulgarity – which they make US pay for. The National Broadcaster is a National disgrace and the fact that parasites like Ross and Brand leach of the huge amounts of cash it can provide care of you and me is an outrage that can only be addressed the day the License tax is axed for good.
“a prank” – pathetic. Lower and lower into the sewer….
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/david_hughes/blog/2008/10/27/russell_brand_and_jonathan_ross_should_be_sued_for_breach_of_privacy
Appalling stuff but nothing less than I expect from this pair of overgrown schoolboys.
One point though – by referring to Jonathan Ross as “Wossy”, you (and many others) are needlessly lowering yourself to his standards.
I mean, you do realise that mocking someone’s speech impediment is hardly the action of the intelligentsia, don’t you?
Yes, the BBC-approved narrative, of its own sickening behaviour, is out: it was a ‘PRANK’. (See BBC report, under ‘ENTERTAINMENT’ [ sic/sick ]:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7692911.stm
And because the BBC so attempts to define its insulting actions as a mere ‘prank’, so it is trying to find a way of ensuring that BBC heads do not roll.
The BBC is, of course, very ‘Orwellian’ in its use of groupthink terminology to avoid poeple seeing the truth. As is well known at this blog, the BBC uses the words:
– ‘MILITANT’ not ‘ISLAMIC JIHADIST’,
– ‘DOWNTURN’ not ‘RECESSION’
– ‘PRANK’ not ‘INSULT’.
I mean, you do realise that mocking someone’s speech impediment is hardly the action of the intelligentsia, don’t you?
Andy | 27.10.08 – 7:39 pm | #
Yeth.
From where I’m standing Brand appeared to come from nowhere at very great speed – certainly nowhere compatible with R2, where he operates. You’d think whichever clique of smirking, thrill-chasing ‘talent’ spotters signed him up would have put this self-obsessed degenerate on an ‘edgier’ station, whose demographic more closely matched his mental age.
As for Ross, he is well into his 40s, married with kids, wealthy (thanks to all of us at gunpoint) and has been around long enough to know better than to regress to so shameful a state. Inexcusable.
The BBC shows its contempt for us all by its failure to deal robustly with this latest manifestation of its pathologies. Maybe it’s incurable.
“Maybe it’s incurable.”
It is – the BBC think “controversy” is cool. Its just a jolly wheeze for the elites.
i love the ridiculous moral outrage by these precious nitwits. you all sound like daily mail columnists wittering on about the demise of britain and harping back to the glory days when princess diana was alive and asylum seekers were few and far between. if brand or ross offend you dont listen!
CoolBritannia
I thought you were going to say: if Brand and Ross offend you, don’t pay your BBC licence fee!
CoolBritannia wrote:
“I love the ridiculous moral outrage by these precious nitwits. you all sound like daily mail columnists wittering on about the demise of britain and harping back to the glory days when princess diana was alive and asylum seekers were few and far between. if brand or ross offend you dont listen!”
Good point cool its something I actually do. But pray tell what should Andrew Sachs and his Granddaugther do?
However The Elephant in the room is that both are paid for by the BBC licence fee. Yes even I who doesn’t listen to either wanker pays for their upkeep. Are you now telling me I don’t have a say in how my licence fee is spent? If so please point me in the direction how I can get a refund?
P.S
As a Squaddie living in the UK I and many other squaddies got fobbed off at the high port when trying to get our money back after going away on 6 month tours. (Since changed)
Brand seems unable to realize that his behaviour was wrong.Ross seems to be dimly aware that it was.
Brand has no empathy with other human beings. I am no expert but this is deviant behaviour in my book.
Out of pure self preservation the BBC has to sack him as what is obvious to me must be obvious to even the bosses of the Beeb.
Unless they too wish to be linked with such vileness and have to face growing public anger.
Even the best of comedians (and are these two on the same planet as the best?) will have giggly-schoolboy off-days when they egg each other on to things they are later not proud of. That’s why the BBC has the safety-nets of editors, producers and pre-taped programmes.
In this case, the real culprits are surely the production executives who took a cold, reasoned decision to broadcast this pathetic and insulting garbage. If they are not sacked, it tells us a little more about today’s BBC.
Sachs’ grandaughter belongs to a group called “Satanic Sluts”. He must be so proud.
I notice the double standard in how the BBC news report sanitised this despicable behaviour by liberal use of euphemism and bland language which doesn’t convey the nature of what they actually said and did. How come that there was no equivalent editorial judgement applied to the sick behaviour itself?
Furthermore, the BBC’s so-called apology pointedly didn’t apologise to the young woman who was the target of the vicious lies and humiliation. That too speaks volumes about the BBC’s thug values, as much as the original incident itself.
As I’ve said before, the BBC is imbued with Spirit of Fifteen-Year-Old Boy. (Crass, Thug Boy at that.)
Those who think we should be giving our money not only to this Thug Boy Broadcaster, but to similar organisations, should note that the likely recipient of such largesse would be one Channel 4, which is awash with this kind of crude, lewd and offensive behaviour by such idiot boys. Where do you think the Dragged-up Brand practised and honed his puerile grossness and creepiness?
Bodger Thompson and the panoply of regulators (Ofcom etc), are about as effectve as were the FSA in overseeing the banks. So much for public broadcasting as some kind of good. For whose benefit is it, exactly?
Interesting watching/reading the vanguards of the liberal set tie themselves in knots over this, some erring on a relative’s lifestyle choice to justify actions elsewhere. If one decides, in its defence of the BBC and its own, that he was ‘asking for it’ because well, she was too, the fallout with the sisterhood will be special indeed.
Still, they are diverting attention away from Aunty at the scummy tabloids (who do deserve all they get), for which she will doubtless be grateful.
Can’t help but wonder that this might make the likely lads’ agents’ negotiating positions a little less sparkly, mind. So if we do end up still lumbered with such… talent… the fee might not take such a hit in their ‘essential’ directions, and the money might be spent productively elsewhere.
I am sure possibly a few in-house employees might agree. Even if the BBC itself does not stand behind them as much as others. Then says it’s ‘unacceptable’. Then apologises. Sort of. But doesn’t DO anything mind. Hey, you never know, they might end up NOT standing behind folk they did at first, and supporting others they haven’t before. Could happen.
HIGNFY and Mock the Week should be fun. Unless ‘the word’ goes out. Mind you, between senior management and some central offices doing the hokey-cokey as various staff luvvies and others implode elsewhere there may not be many left who are allowed on!
Meanwhile some are advocating the issue should be dropped as it only was stirred up by the Daily Mail (and its ‘readers’, who seem to be anyone who doesn’t follow certain group thinking), which evidently is a news medium whose objective news (at least) should not count, and as some time has now passed until most ‘heard’ about it.
Hey, I’m up for not counting anything dodgy I do if those who come after me only hear about it 3rd hand (say, from Capita) or later on… sounds like an advocacy for bringing in Judge Dredd mind, and that seldom ends well.
Hilarious how some defenders of ‘liberty’ can get pretty selective when they choose.
The public sees too many reap the rewards of responsibility without any consequent penalties of accountability.
I note a new twist. I had assumed the call was invited if not welcome. Now it seems Mr. Sachs was to have either attended or called in and failed to show. Handing over his mobile number in such a way… data protection breach by the BBC… again?
What a couple of dicks
What a coincidence this all kicked off just when Brand has got a new channel 4 show starting on Friday (a poor copy of Bob Mills’s “In Bed with Medinner” from years back) – promotion of another channel’s show instead of the usual tedious cross promotion of other BBC fare makes a change!
The BBC has been getting more and more vulgar, and its shows less funny, for soem time. Mind you so has the B-BBC site – Brand and Ross would feel right at home with all the tit spotting in the Question Time watch posts/comments.
For anybody that missed the broadcast:
http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=46a3455a56125050ab1eab3e9fa335ca01758793001bc261
The flaw in the “prank” was the odd idea that Andrew Sachs’ granddaughter would find Brand appealing.