My thoughts:
If some chav rang up an old person and left lewd messages on their phone saying they'd f*cked their grand-daughter, that's be a criminal offence - but because it's two bloated egos at the BBC then that's all fine? 
Sachs did not consent to the material being used, but it was used anyway.
Sachs did not request to be involved in the gag, and the man can hardly be considered much of a public figure these days - and certainly not a celebrity in the Heat magazine vein of the term. Public figures are open to ridicule and mockery, some person you've never heard of isn't.
A good comedian knows their targets and chooses them wisely, you attack an institution, an organisation, a religion, or a public figure or politician - this is where Brand and Ross both faltered.
I too, don't find "comedy" at all funny when the public is the butt of the joke, and isn't in on it either.
...
As for the furore, don't be labelling me a Daily Mailer - I hate that rag, like most tabloids, just a bunch of bile-inducing hate machines.
But I think the extent of this fuss goes waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond the central issue, and has become a sort of 'excuse' if you will, for people to organise and level criticism en mass at the BBC, over issues such as:
* BBC's political bias, despite claiming to be impartial.
* The License Fee - which is no longer suitable, this is not the 1930s anymore, there are literally hundreds of channels out there doing the exact same programming, and even doing it better.
I can't be doing with Brand, he was only bearable enough in Forgetting Sarah Marshall. As for Ross, I can't be doing with him either, I only watch Friday Night With... when there's a good guest on, and then it often ends up being Ross blathering over the guest, or somehow managing to circle the topic of conversation back onto him, or somehow descending the chat into a smutty pit that makes no comedic sense - e.g. when he asked David Cameron - the leader of the opposition party here in the UK, if he ever wanked-off to Margaret Thatcher. *sigh* I mean there are far funnier jokes you could ask of a political leader than that, I mean that's 10 year old stuff.
I think both Brand and Ross are two bloated bags of their own self-important wind, ESPECIALLY Ross, but you know what - at least Brand had the chuddies to film an apology that he also seemed to really mean, he even chose to resign from his Radio show, and he seemed to have genuinely owned up and realised he'd just gone that bit too far - so he's done plenty enough, although if he hasn't already (which the rumour is), he needs to apologise (as does Ross), to the grand-daughter in question, not just Andrew Sachs.
As for Ross, I think the BBC should lob him out of Film 2008 and put Mark Kermode in there instead, Kermode is a genuine film critic, not just a trumped up film fan who fawns over every celebrity guest he gets on his show before he either completely loves, or completely loathes a film with his flabby, paint-by-numbers film critique which is just a notch above Paul Ross.
...
As for government involvement - they should have nothing to do with it. Fine, make a passing remark if asked about it, but it shouldn't have any place in the House of Commons, nor should Gordon-bloody-Brown be having any part in it what-so-ever ... no doubt 'his words' on it being put out to the media was down to that absolute evil bastard Alistair Campbell, who's managed to sleek his way back in on the coat-tails of bloody Mandelson.
...
I don't find the content in question offensive, but I also find it to have just gone over the line with an unfair target - like I said, if it was some chav doing it, it'd be lewd harrassment and there'd either be a fine or a suspended sentence, perhaps more.
As for Ross being suspended without pay until a verdict is reached by the BBC (that Mark Thompson is a bit of a twat too, in my opinion), that's enough for me, as it means he loses about one-point-something-million-quid over the 12 week period he's off-air.
And that's another thing - the BBC shouldn't be held to ransom by these ego-fuelled presenters. You know what? Find new, fresh (and cheaper) talent elsewhere and let the bloated egos fight for work elsewhere.
The BBC also needs to wake the f*ck up already and realise that it isn't Channel 4, or even E4. It needs to:
* Produce actually un-biased news.
* Pay their big stars less.
* Produce programming that isn't being produced elsewhere - which is actually impossible, due to the afforementioned variety of channels out there.
* At the very least, REDUCE the license fee significantly, £139 just for the BBC per year is a bloody ludicrous notion, especially as their 'reason for being' is no longer relevant or adhered to.
As for the license fee - I object to it - it's no longer of any point, due to the sheer volume of channels out there that are paying their own way through subscriptions (that you choose to pay) and advertising. It's also a goddamned tax that you are forced to pay for fear of being fined £1,000!!! 
*gasps*
Rant over.
|
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there--on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam. [click for more]
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Neil
Bookmarks