Russell Brand writes for the Guardian
No surprise there, of course. They’ve had some oddball columnists in their time, Myra Hindley, Osama Bin Laden, David Cameron, and they still employ George Moonbat. But the last time one of their sports columnists got in trouble for over the top plain-speaking was Big Ron Atkinson, and he got the red card from both ITV and the Guardian.
Will the same happen to Our Russell?
I like him now.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/video/2008/oct/29/russell-brand
The whole point is though, that what you did was artless, childish, and not funny. I’ve heard more entertaining wit from the schoolchildren on the London omnibus.
But it’s not your fault Russell, that we hate the BBC.
Anyhow what do you care? Off to Ponderland @C4. Happy pondering.
It is Ross I feel sorry for,too old to be a rent boy,too young to be a tramp.
According to a comment on Guido ( unattributed), the BBC told Andrew Sachs that he would never work for them again, unless he dropped the complaint against Ross. Only gossip, of course, but it sounds like the sort of thing the BBC would do.
I also wonder if Brand and Ross did a deal between them for Ross to pay Brand to resign to take the heat off Ross. Only a thought …..
I don’t buy the Guardian so I won’t be paying Brand for his articles. I wouldn’t mind Brand producing trash for the BBC if I didn’t have to pay him for it just so I can watch football on Sky without getting a fine and a criminal record.
Sue | 30.10.08 – 11:34 am
Well, I followed your link and…sure… I was just getting to like the guy too, when he said something that just didn’t ring true:
I only do that radio show to make people happy
What? No thought of money (the reported…er….six figure consideration)? Not even a touch of career building?
So then the clock having struck 13, I found it impossible not just to believe everything he said after that, but everything he’s said before too.
perhaps the Daily Mail will employ him as a teaboy
“…never work for the BBC again”…
The BBC has a very short memory.
When Ed Stewart read out a dedication for troops in Northern Ireland wishing them well (the memo actually said, ‘don’t read this – these men have just been killed’) he was fired – and rehired.
That’s just one example that comes to mind, but the same has happened repeatedly because celebrity trumps everything at the BBC – even common decency.
Ross (and Brand) will be back. Give it a little time.
If the Guardian continues to employ Brand has NOTHING TO DO WITH BBC BIAS.
“If the Guardian continues to employ Brand has NOTHING TO DO WITH BBC BIAS.”
Yes it does – the BBC is, effectively, The Guardian on air. The BBC recruits through The Guardian, not through the far more widely read Daily Telegraph. I suggest you study Britain a lot more before making another intervention on this site.
Grant | 30.10.08 – 12:25 pm:
According to a comment on Guido (unattributed), the BBC told Andrew Sachs that he would never work for them again, unless he dropped the complaint against Ross. Only gossip, of course, but it sounds like the sort of thing the BBC would do.
It certainly is. Does anyone here remember the BBC2 documentary about Martin Bell’s Tatton campaign, “Mr Bell Goes to Westminster,” broadcast 10 June 1997, i.e. six weeks after the 1 May 1997 General Election? It gave a devastating insight into Bell’s, the Guardian’s, and the Labour Party’s behind-the-scenes machinations that facilitated Bell’s victory and with it the Labour landslide.
You name it, it went on: faxes to Bell from Alastair Campbell bearing the text of speeches for Bell to read out as if they were his own words; Guardian journos David Leigh and Ed Vulliamy secretly advising Bell on Hamilton’s supposed wrongdoing; Guardian (and now Panorama) journo John Sweeney spinning away on Bell’s behalf; official Labour and LibDem party workers shipped up from London to help Bell…
Martin Bell came out of it dreadfully and the Hamiltons rather well. Which is quite something back then.
It was a real eye-opener – I couldn’t believe that it was a BBC programme.
Well, it was filmed and directed by a chap called Peter Sharratt, in association with independent production company Davenhall.
It should have won Peter Sharratt a BAFTA. Instead it was never repeated and (I’m fairly certain) it was the last time Sharratt worked for BBC News and Current affairs. Which says it all, really.
Brave guy.
I can’t understand why anyone would be impressed by Brand’s gushing praise for the BBC. Such sycophancy is commonly observed in those in receipt of BBC largess. I find it obnoxious and vaguely sinister.
Did anyone spot the joke? He said he hadn’t yet apologised to Ms Baillie because he didn’t want to make it worse! Not sure he’s got the deadpan nailed though – he looks like he’s having an epileptic fit when he talks.
Also ironic that he should praise the BBC as an institution, when he is the very embodiment of one of the best arguments against it.
If I had heard the offending skit at the time it was broadcast, I would have assumed that Andrew Sachs was in on the joke, or was a personal friend of Ross/Brand, or had been notified in advance, or was otherwise reasonably expected to be ‘game for a laugh’. If it’s true that he asked for it not to be broadcast, that puts an entirely different complexion on the matter.
The BBC. Absolute power. Absolute corruption.
The Jonathan Ross-Russell Brand incident is a tragic reflection of the bullying culture that has taken hold of the broadcasting industry in this country. Brand and Ross harassed, humiliated and bullied an elderly man and his family partly because television presenters unaccountably believe they are the untouchable “masters of the universe” and because their producers live in a London-centric bubble fuelled by infantile excess and ceaseless frivolity. It’s no small coincidence that programme makers really do believe that people will undergo a “life changing experience” just by participating in their game shows.
Thankfully, homophobic and racial bullying have all but disappeared from our broadcast media but it has been replaced by other equally nasty forms of spite and cruelty. In this Clockwork Orange world -the obese, the elderly, the white working class, women, the eccentric, toffs , certain faiths – are all subject to ritual abuse by foul mouthed celebrity chefs, harsh fashionistas, confessional programmes, edgy drama and on bully driven programmes like Dragons Den, Hell’s Kitchen, Question Time, Ministry of Food, The Weakest Link, The Apprentice, I’m a Celebrity and Big Brother.
Significantly, most of these are BBC productions. This nationalised, public service broadcaster needs to get their house in order. They appear to have forgotten their Charter and their responsibilities to people who do not share their increasingly narrow vision of our society
Chinese contributor 1:30
The Guardian is a left-wing newspaper in the same way that the BBC is a left-wing broadcaster.
What’s more, the BBC subsidises the Grauniad to the hilt (with OUR money) by passing it all their job advertising. Snouts in the trough, trebles all round etc
Bob 4:28
I am not sure, but I thought incest was a crime in the UK ?
interesting about Martin Bell —my main objection to him is that he appears to be a joyless little tick –but a lefty puppet as well?? As Satre said “hell is knowing BBC people “
Frankos 4:59
Ha ! Nice one ! Lefties “joy ” just comes through hate ! That is what they do.
He just makes a fool of himself speaking on things he knows nothing about. Someone needs to give him a pair of scissors for that hair of his. It’s blinding him from the mess the socialist illuminati have us in.
Martin Bell came out of it dreadfully and the Hamiltons rather well
Bell is and always has been a jerk. I mean, a white suit … the moment I saw him wearing it, I realised what a prick he is and started sympathising with the Hamiltons. My admiration for them has increased over the years.
Ms Know,
The man is plainly disturbed, a rather repulsive 5-old (Look at me, ma, I can shag 3 women a day!) – bearing in mind that I find most normal 5-year olds brilliant company! – in a grown-up body. I suppose one should feel sorry for him.
Ross is less disturbed, maybe (!), but certainly a sickening little shit.
They appear to have forgotten their Charter
They have been crapping all over the charter for a long time. There’s no ‘appear’ about it.
Ricky…
Super comment fella!
Yes, seconded.
By the way, I make it 8:15, not 9:15.
Jonathan Boyd Hunt | Homepage | 30.10.08 – 2:17 pm |
I read the above with interest.
But still it seems you do not go further then the BBC and The Labour Party.
WHY?
If you do not know the following you should do by now. The BBC is controlled by the establishment through bodies such as the R.I.F.A., the secret service and civil service.
It is clear that the BBC does what the BBC does because the establishment effectively ORDER them to. So called left wing/radical agendas are now and always have been establishment agendas. Like wise so called Right wing/reactionary ones.
Which is why a WISE man will not see themselves as being either left or right wing. He must only see the world as US or THEM, good for me or bad for me, gods individualist hand or the work of the collectivists devil.
The BBC/entire MSM works for THEM, and only ever for US by accident.
The BBC is very bad indeed, and only good when trying its hardest to hide the truly terrible things it is otherwise obviously lying about.
The BBC worships the occult power of Lucifer. ( Which is things such as disinformation, social engineering, secret agendas, hypnotism, authoritarianism, corporate multi-national power, including corporate Imperialism, subliminal imaging, propaganda, lying through their teeth, etc. )
Johnathan, either know your real enemy or lose the battle and the war.
If you still care. Try to work out how or why exactly the BBC gets away with OPENLY campaigning for a major political party during a run up to a general election. Or at any other time, come to think about it?
Ask yourself the extremely important question as to why it is no body but yourself seems interested in giving publicity to your conclusive evidence of highly illegal party political corruption, backed up by BBC/MSM collusion?
IMO you are having exactly the same problem you would be having if you had direct and conclusive evidence that The Queen of England is now and always has been a man in drag, less perhaps the car crash, sudden heart attack, or walk in the woods treatment.
In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is KING.
Unfortunately for the great unwashed, they are all so completely blinded by BBC/MSM propaganda, they dont have so much as a clue as to quite how blind.
So even the one eyed man gets ignored.
Still the good news is 100 years ago people like ourselves would have been already locked up in a metal institution and then swiftly brain damaged by apparently benevolent doctors, Usually using surgery, drugs, violence, torture, and/or violent sexual abuse.
Now the establishments media just call someone who has finally broken free from the establishments mind control matrix, a ‘mad conspiracy theorist.’ In full and justifiable confidence that the vast majority will seek rapid comfort back in the pack of ‘true ignorance,’ and collectively laugh at the perceived FOOL.
One other thing.
One good thing about pointlessly banging ones head hard against the wall. Is how good it feels when one finally stops doing so.
Atlas:
“The BBC is controlled by the establishment through bodies such as the R.I.F.A., the secret service and civil service.”
No….the BBC has its own agenda, not the agenda by some kind of hidden group of powerful individuals running round the woods naked a la the moon bat nonsense that Alex Jones comes out with.
No the truth I suspect is much duller. Most of these guys are old relics from the 1960’s counter-culture movement who are still fighting old battles. The stench of the New Left (the main political ideology of the counter-culture) and the obsession with identity politics, “green” movements etc is the same old tired argument that they wheeled out in 1968.
This is why the likes of Tariq Ali gets more airtime- its reminds all these old timers of “better days”
Bland, Lilly Allen, Whinehouse, etc are the spawn of these creatures-pumped full of the same sh*t, living in their little worlds.
The difference is now they are the establishment; the problem is that that these middle class twats (which make up about 80% of the counter culture) still think that their bankrupted ideology is relevant today, and because they are in positions of influence they think they can impose their worldview on everybody else-what ever the punters think.
Over the last 10 years we’ve been living in clover, but now money is now tight and many are starting to look at things difficulty, with the feeling that we are going backwards to the same state in 1970’s time is running out for all these goons.
Just remember 1979….
Atlas shrugged | 30.10.08 – 9:32 pm:
Atlas: I’m flattered that you find my stuff interesting but I cannot subscribe to your appraisal of the situation. Sorry. IMHO the Beeb’s problems stem from being overrun with leftists. There’s no conspiracy – it’s just peer pressure, Groupthink, and good old leftist bigotry.
Full stop.
George | 30.10.08 – 8:14 pm:
Frankos | 30.10.08 – 4:59 pm:
If you want the inside info on what a posturing liar Martin Bell really is, check out “The Little Book of Bell.”
I’d be interested to learn your thoughts.
Grant: “The Guardian is a left-wing newspaper in the same way that the BBC is a left-wing broadcaster.”
I agree, the BBC is, without doubt, a left of centre organisation and it’s bias does show but, I still stand by my assertation that the employment of Brand (or not) by the privately funded Guardian has nothing to do with the Bias or not of the state funded BBC.
The fact that the Guardian is used by the BBC for advertising rather than the Daily Telegraph can be used of evidence of Bias (Thank you so much for your helpful “information”(opinion) on British life Mr Gentle) but the “Bias by association” argument of the original post is a bit of a long shot!
OK – the BBC puts public money into the Guardian with Job adverts – I have a feeling that this isn’t the only form of funding the Guardian receives though – but yet again – “Bias by association” is a weak argument.