The mathematics of Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand

 

       You need Flash Player 8 or higher to view video content with the ROO Flash Player.    Click here to download and install it.   

Why have 18,000 people complained to the BBC about Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross?

The figure is being used as a measure of the scale of public outrage. Of course, it is nothing of the sort.

If a number of unsavoury incidents cause equal amounts of offence, they will result in an unequal number of complaints.

It seems as if the complaints are distributed on a power law curve. A few incidents will garner a vast number of complaints, a long tail of equally offensive incidents will attract almost no complaints.

People who ordinarily would sit at home and fume quietly, picked up the idea that everyone else was complaining. They therefore complained themselves, conforming to the norm of people who were cross about this incident.

The BBC's sluggish reaction is explained partly by the fact that it is impossible in advance to know to which category (massive disaster or entirely unnoticed) a particular incident will belong to.

Does this mean that suspending Ross and Brand is an unreasonable over-reaction?

No.

In order for the BBC to avoid its output consisting of relentless tasteless jokes of this kind, it is important that it gets the sanction correct. It does this not by a proportionate reaction to each incident, but by a disproportionate one.

Most offensive pranks go unnoticed and the originators entirely unpunished. If this is not to encourage offensive pranks, it is important than the sanction for any prank that comes at the top of the power law curve is harsh.

That way the punishment multiplied by the chance of being punished is adequate to act as a disincentive.

So while it may seems as if a disproportionate fuss is being made over this one incident, that is entirely the point.

Comments

[Heather]

Let's remember three things:

1. Sachs was scheduled to be interviewed on the show, they didn't just call him up as a joke; he stood them up.

2. Sachs was called by the producers of the show and gave permission for the message to be played on air!

3. If you don't want your grandfather to find out you're a member of a dance group called the Satanic Sluts, maybe you shouldn't be in one.

[Andrew Guy]

Sorry, who flung dung?! English dear boy, English.

[Peter Cooper]

It seems that many forget the similar furore over Chris Morris's "Brass Eye" shown on Channel 4 several years ago. Despite having not watched the show, a number of politicians spoke out against it while legions of Daily Mail readers wrote complaints.

If there's something we need to stamp out in this country, it's the intolerance coming from Middle England, and not brusque, tasteless comedy. One breeds all sorts of social ills, whereas the other results in temporary offence that we'll have forgotten about in a week or two.

[Tim Hedges]

The reaction is not disproportionate. More people would protest if they thought the BBC would take any notice. This is not Radio Bloke it is the BBC. If we don't protest it will get worse. I am quite convinced Ross and Brand should be dismissed, and confident they will be.

[nick]

Just to correct Heather, Sachs specifically asked to appear on the following week's show so the calls would NOT be aired.

[Paul]

An interesting set of morals held by Heather. Humiliate a 78 year old grandfather and his family in public and then blame the 78 year old grandfather.

[Keith]

I would strongly suspect that a considerable number of complaints were made about these two in order to vent the public's anger at having to pay a licence fee which in turn pays for these cretins.

[Alik]

Two perverse idiots earning such money is surely sickening to all. One would think that Ross would have some kind of decency since he is married with children. What a disgrace.

[lisa]

i agree with heather but Sachs did ask for the calls not to be aired but the BBC went ahead and aired it anyway this is not russell and Jonathan's fault as far as they were concerned the show was edited to a standard that was sortable for viewing. They should not be sacked for the BBC's mistakes. It is your own choice to listen to the show it is aired at 9 which means that they can be rude if people don't want to listen to something they can contain content like this they shouldn't listen to it. Millions of people download the podcast and only 18,000 complained and i bet most of these complaints came from people who don't listen to the show. I do understand that this has upset Sachs but russell and jonathan have aplogised for the phone calls and know they were wrong.

[Wilfred]

Brand and Ross deserved to be criticised by the public, and then suspended. I'm pleased Brand had the decency to resign.

But your interesting comments about the mathematics of complaints have a wider resonance. The complaints went over the top, especially since they were very much after the event. Probably most of the complainants didn't hear the offending broadcast. In fact, this complaining, nit-picking culture is a form of bullying in itself (as bad as the Brand-Ross bullying), where the revenge-seeking elements of society jump on a bandwagon of self-justified moral superiority. It's similar to the kind of comments you can find on Guardian CiF blogs, where a strange alliance of libertarians, SWP-type leftwingers and Torygraph rightists rule the blogging roost and vilify and bully anyone with a view that contradicts the ruling orthodoxy. This bully-boy mentality reminds me of the attacks on paediatricians at the height of the revulsion against the Sarah Payne killer, the Diana teddy-bear fascists, the anti-scientist Wakefield-inspired polemics over MMR and the media-led bullying of the poor McCanns, where idiots blogged various tabloids to make these devastated parents suffer even more than the loss of their child.

It really is time for right-minded people of all political persuasions to speak out against bullying and the degradation of our national culture.

[Harlan Leyside]

Brand has resigned. The BBC have lost a genuine talent. Sadly, Ross, the overpaid, aging cretin, will probably keep his contract. Ross sucks off other's talent by association (eg: Gervais) and Brand was his latest prey.
BBC funds prop up far too many past-it comfort-zoners like Ross, when they should be nurturing new talent.

[chris]

why is everyone slating RB and JR? at work my output is monitored by my management. theirs should have been doing the same. their supervisor should be carrying the can for this as this show was apparently pre-recorded, not live so could have been edited accordingly. i dont think what they did was right in any way, but i think the lynch mob are attacking the wrong people

I am amazed to read that so many young people are up in arms regarding the Ross and Brand comments. I am astonished so many of them listen to Radio two- my son in his twenties nephews neices teenagers- never tune into this station. I am fifty and listen to raidio two and i also watch the Friday night show - I will not watch or listen to either show again- and hope other listners who were offended do the same and we will see the ratings and who actually has the last say

[Toby Johnson]

I think that Mr Brand and Mr Ross definately crossed the line with this one. Mr Sachs should not have been a guest, absent or otherwise, when the listeners knew of his grand-daughter's exploits, and he didn't!

Having said that, it was incredibly funny; one of the funniest things that I have heard in a long, long time. Mr Brand, Mr Ross, and Mr Sachs have all paid a high price for my laughter.

[Martyn Drake]

Well, it doesn't help that media outlets such as this keep publishes the transcript and audio/video of the offending material!

And this makes them equally responsible for the offensive in my opinion...

[David]

If it wasn't for the media hype then this whole incident would not have blown out of proportion. I bet that 99% of the "complainers" had never heard of the russell brand radio show, let alone heard the actual broadcast. The previous week David Baddiel and Brand were talking about a member of the Satanic Sluts being Sach's Grand Daughter but you dont hear any complaints about that.
If the Media had not mentioned it then it would have been forgotten. But now we have thousands of Do Gooders going too far with it.

[phil]

Live with it.
The grandaughters 'career', I'm sure, has done well out of this...

JR, in particular, is a radio genius... Sack him at your peril!

[Sedgwick]

57% of all female criminal convictions are related to television licence evasion. This affects the poorest and most vunerable in society and yet Jonathan Ross earns £18 million in 3 years. He works 3 hours a week. How am I supposed to laugh.

[Astaroth]

Brand and Woss are among the worst examples of hominid you could ever have the misfortune to encounter ... ignorant, abusive and foulmouthed. For some reason, this appears to be regarded as quite acceptable today, otherwise why would a publicly funded organisation choose to employ them at all, let alone pay them the ludicrously inflated salaries they each receive? Brand has now resigned, somewhat belatedly, and Woss claims to be 'sorry', also somewhat belatedly, and presumably in expectation that he might keep his £16000/day 'job' now his mate has agreed to take the blame. But there were two people involved in this, and the pair are equally responsible for making obscene phonecalls to a frail 78 year old. Far from keeping his job, Woss should be in jail ... surely even the Crown Prosecution Service could win a case where the evidence of the crime was actually broadcast by the BBC?

[Lee]

Quite frankly some British people as per usual have overreacted to what the vast majority thought to be a hilarious skit. With the minority of boring old sods spoiling what was once a cracking show for the majority.

- if you've watched any British comedy in the past 10 years you may have noticed its quite risky, controversial stuff... sorry if im wrong but i believe this is why its funny? its what were about...

Most people who are complaining most probably havnt even watched it and have little else better to do.

If you want Ross sacked, your honestly a moron - Some people need to pull the finger out of their uptight wannabe upperclass backsides now and again and learn to laugh a little!

for the record im not remotely sorry if you feel im wrong, it was hilarious! Get over it! :)

[Rod Evans]

Peter Cooper - what makes you think it's only Middle Englanders that are upset about Ross and Brand? Come down my manor son, there are a few roofers and scaffolders in my local that I know that would love to discuss this with you.It's all about common decency which is not a class thing.

[sedgwick]

Look at the underhand way the BBC try to enforce their licence tax here:
http://www.bbctvlicence.com/index.htm

[Tim]

Using the telephone network to make abusive calls is an offence, is it not?

Suspension is a "neutral act" (although it may not feel that way) while investigations, that may or may not lead to disciplinary action by an employer, are conducted.

The number of complaints is irrelevant.

[Nick G.]

J.Ross should have his Contract terminated immediately and barred from ever broadcasting again. I hope the police carry out a full and proper investigation and be seen to take whatever action the Law requires.

[Ian Kemmish]

I don't know about the other 17,999, but my complaint was about the sluggish reaction, not the original almost certain breach of the broadcasting code. I only complained after I saw News 24's interview with Tim Davie, which showed precisely why spoilt brats feel they can run rings around both their managers and the code. Even now, it's not the BBC who has suspended them, but the new Director General, who got his job in a similar situation and presumably feels he can lose it again just as easily. Nobody else seems to feel accountable for fulfilling their job description.

My grandmother and yours would say "least said, soonest mended" and that is what should have guided BBC managers this week and at all other times. This week, two presenters on Essex FM also broadcast offensive material. They were immediately and quietly suspended pending a quick but (hopefully) thorough investigation. This is what any company would do when customers are gratuitously offended - and in most cases probably without senior management even getting involved. This is what the BBC should have done.

[JM]

Ross and Brand were puerile and lacked judgment but maybe, just maybe, the humiliation being felt by the Sachs family is derived more on the choice of profession of Sachs' granddaughter and the company she keeps being made public. I've read that she now admits that she did in fact sleep with Brand and Sachs himself is reported as saying that his granddaughter's career is not something he is entirely comfortable with.

The Daily Mail (and the rest of the media, The Times included) can get on their high horses but this wasn't even a story - a small audience of Brand devotees had heard the exchange in question and 2 complaints resulted - until the Mail decided, a week after the broadcast, to publicise it and blew the whole thing into an issue which, if the number of column inches being devoted to it is any guide, would appear to rival the credit crunch and the US elections in terms of global significance.

If the harm caused here is the adverse publicity and humiliation delivered upon the Sachs family then the whole of the British media are complicit in that. I notice that none of the print media are asking searching questions about their own editorial judgment.

[Reggie von Zugbach]

Ross and Brand have done the public a big favour. Finally the myth of the compulsory licence fee as necessay to maiintain broadcasting standards is being seriously questioned by people who can do something about it. I hope hey act accordingly

[J Godfrey]

I have neither read, nor heard the offensive remarks, and as I was not exposed to them I think they were perhaps in poor taste. From what I have read, there was an implicit request that the content be withheld, until Mr Sachs could appear. In which case, the presenters, do not bear the full blast, the programme has an editor and producer. By definition the editor should edit, its what he gets paid for, and the producer should ensure what he produces is legitimate. OK bounce up and down if you like, but its the responsibility of guy who pressed the "to air" button, he (or she) is paid to make a judgement of what is decent to air, the presenters are paid to present. How many "bloopers" appear on Denis Norden's show, with beeps, and how many are too rude to air, so they don't.
Out of the unpteen thousand complaints, how many heard it live, how many chose to listen, (or read the transcript), knowing that is offensive, then made a complaint. Moreover, why is the transcript available to read if it is offensive, did I just see a link in the Times, That is in my eyes worse than if it went out live and uncensored, which it didn't. So The Times, if it is there, or if the wording is there with rude bits blotted out for you to fill in yourself, shame on you, I hope it isn't.

[Shelley]

i listened to the podcast every week and find it hilarious. maybe they did cross the line but who really cares?! it was funny! i laughed my socks off. people really need to lighten up. i cant believe RB has quit his job and JR's is on the line!

[gabriel garcia]

Brand;s whole career is based on hype, i went to see his stand up and frankly what made more of an impression on me was that people, especially women, seem to think that being on tv equates to having talent, he is a textbook example that a bag of potatoes on tv is still a bag of potatoes however much the shallow fashion-driven populace wants me to think otherwise..IT WASN'T REMOTELY FUNNY, HOWEVER COINCIDENTALLY OFFENSIVE IT HAPPENED TO BE. And it wasnt EDITORIAL FAULT, THEY SHOULDNT HAVE LEFT THE OFFENSIVE MESSAGES ON HIS PHONE AND this is what is the essence of the offence, more people hearing it just compounded an already low-class bullying of an old man.

[Nimrod]

Heather, you are wrong on two of the 3 points in your posting: Sachs did not give his consent for the recording to be played on air, and (as everyone else, including Brand and Ross appears to be aware), the main issue with what Brand/Ross were saying was their repeated reference to Brand having a sexual relationship with Sachs' granddaughter (I would guess that Sachs already knows she is in the Satanic Sluts). Get your facts straight before giving us the benefit of your view.

My "view" - for what its worth - is:

1. The main stimulus for the public outrage which we have seen is the involvement of Ross. If it had just been a question of Russell Brand making these comments on his radio show, then it would just have been seen as typical Brand, and he might just have been suspended: after all, he does have previous "form" in generating controversy. However, Ross's participation gave the critics another opportunity to criticize him in the context of his immense salary, and to in turn criticize the BBC for employing at huge expense a man whose MO consists largely of innuendo and insult (and who hosts a chatt show in which the guests have precious little time to "chat" in the face of the usual Ross torrent of waffle and inanity).

2. A significant issue here is how this pre-recorded item was allowed to be broadcast - especially as Sachs had already withheld his consent. Again, if this had been a live broadcast with no opportunity for producer or management to intervene before transmission, then the situation would have been entirely different. It is hard to believe that senior BBC employees with a regard for the sensibilities of their audience and their licence payers could have authorised this broadcast. The fact that no-one in the BCC was able to respond menaingfully on this issue for several days merely underlines the lack of a chain of command within the organisation.

3. As usual, we have the denizens of the "entertainment community" - such as O'Farrell and Gervais on last night's TV - defending Ross and Brand and warning of the dangers of censorship. Obviously we would be unreasonable in expecting them to criticise their showbiz chums (heaven forbid), but they have completely misunderstood the point - censorship is what should have happened anyway if someone responsible in the BBC food chain had intervened in the way that Mark Thompson et al now admit should have occurred. Censorship is one of the benchmarks of civilised broadcasting - there must be a line which cannot be crossed, it is a question of where that line is drawn (jokes about paedophilia anyone?) - and if there is to be a "line" then it is censorship which enforces it. People cannot just say what they like on the air.

4. The Ross salary issue remains a legitimate subject for public debate, as it is paid from public money. How many cuts in other areas of broadcasting (educational, children's shows etc) could have been avoided if a sensible economic decision had been taken before engaging him? How many BBC job cuts could have been avoided?

[jasper]

Sad that so many posters can't recognise bullying when they see it, even more disturbing how many find it funny.

Bullying isn't big and it isn't clever. Perhaps if the BBC taken a firm anti-bullying line with Chris Moyles re Nicola Roberts this would not have happened.

[R Wells]

The BBC is not in the same position as the 'commercial' media. It is funded by licence. If people don't like the way that licence money is being used they have a right to complain regardless of whether they 'heard it live' or not. Should I also assume that the British tax payer is not allowed to be appalled at the Iraq war because they are not experiencing it 'live'?

[George]

Totally agree with the #1 comment. Sachs agreed to come on next weeks show if they pulled the comments so he can't have been that upset.

All these people complaining are really making me mad as they are just jumping on the bandwagon.

[C.Elder]

Brand and Ross are nothing but schoolyard bullies in their treatment of Mr.Sachs.While the young lady in question may not be a paragon of virtue,that is no reason to treat her publicly in a demeaning way.Especially since Brand "knew her" in a biblical sense.But the crux is that the BBC staff involved,once more,exercised no judgment and allowed this previously taped show to be broadcast.It is this ethos at the BBC,that somehow the BBC is accountable to no one and responsible to no one that is the root cause of their long standing problems.And these are indeed too many to continue to ignore,stretching from fake competitions and phone ins to the propagation of the BBC's view of the world instead of facts.
This organization needs to be overhauled from top to bottom,and I am looking forward to Ofcom taking an axe to it.It is long overdue.The BBC may be "Auntie" ,but it is clearly an "Auntie" that has gone off the rails,and become incontinent,with inappropriate make-up and clothing.These are usually confined to a special facility.

[steve]

The Daily Mail (and the rest of the media, The Times included) can get on their high horses but this wasn't even a story -

Typical BBC supporter. Leftie?
Everybody's wrong except him. Typical case of political brainwashing.

[Daniel]

I had to laugh when earlier i nthe week, the bbc 10' clock news asked a group of grannies what they though of the whole situation, I bet noen of them even listened to the russell brand show, the funniest show on radio 2, and the only reason I tuned in (well, downloaded !)

[Matt]

I think this is a serious case of double standards, both by the public and the media.

Media:
The tabloid and gossip press habitually print stories of Brand's sexual exploits with far worse detail; regularly naming and shaming with details and all. Yet these (mainly) are the papers and magazines that are currently vilifying Brand.

Public:
As a country we seem to be proud of out boundary-pushing sense of humor. We all rushed to protect Brand when he was criticized at the MTV awards show. Whilst our most popular comedy shows often feature humor of far worse taste; just watch 'Mock the Week' once and I guarantee you Frankie Boyle will say something far more offensive (I love Frankie Boyle by the way!). Yet these shows receive little to know complaints and often run for more then 5 seasons.

It just sums Britain's sketchy and constantly changing idea of a moral-code.

[Cheryl]

"I have neither read, nor heard the offensive remarks, and as I was not exposed to them I think they were perhaps in poor taste."

Doesn't this sum up the extent of the over-reaction to this story? It makes me laugh how many people feel compelled to complain when they haven't even heard the material - it almost made me laugh as much as Brand's show.

"Moreover, why is the transcript available to read if it is offensive, did I just see a link in the Times, That is in my eyes worse than if it went out live and uncensored, which it didn't."

Whether you listen to or read the so-called offensive comments or not is your choice - the media has a duty to report the story, and include the link/transcript so people can make up their own minds, rather than believe what the Mail tells them.

They've apologised. Get over it.

[Rob]

"Sachs did ask for the calls not to be aired but the BBC went ahead and aired it anyway this is not russell and Jonathan's fault as far as they were concerned the show was edited to a standard that was sortable for viewing"

It's not their fault that the calls were aired, but it IS their fault that the calls were made. The harm (to Sachs and his granddaughter) was done when the calls were made - broadcasting them merely compounded that.

[Anthony]

If the BBC insist on squandering our licence fees on tasteless yobs why should anyone be surprised when they behave like it? Under the circumstances, the "surprised" reaction was inappropriate and the sight of MPs jumping on the band wagon was only slightly less tasteless than the original offence. Who ever hired Ross & Brand in the first place should be strung up.

[Christina]

Having read the transcript of the calls I am amazed that they havent been sacked for sheer lack of talent. What boring interplay and a waste of time. I do agree with Chris, the idiot who allowed this to be aired really is not up to his job title.

[Simon Banks]

Judging by the huge post-complaint build-up this is more about the overdue discipline that Ross so clearly needs. I heard the show when it was broadcast and I was more offended by Ross's total lack of respect for the listener. Broadcasting while audibly munching on 'Chips and Sushi' and clacking his way through a monologue of self adulation and self appraisement of his libido - as always. You just got the felling that if a producer dared to regulate his output, he would have said "you'll never work at the BBC again!". It's about time. Very sad to lose the talent of Russell Brand, but if it brings Ross down a peg or two it will have been worth it.

[Lloyd Sloan]

I've heard worse tasteless remarks but in those instances there was no public uproar.

Andrew Sachs has said that he is not seeking revenge. Am I the only one that thinks 18000+ complaints is a major over-reaction?

[Jim Burns]

Whats the Major got to say about all this? Fawlty wheres Fawlty!

[Kevin G]

As an American who lived in your wonderful country for 6 years I hope Brand and Ross have long healthy careers. I find them both hilarious though I relate to Ross more (showing my age). They received approximately 18000 complaints but how many people watch/listen to their programs on a regular basis - millions in Ross's case. Given that they have an extremely large audience that is entertained by them which I would says makes them good value for money.

Be careful how you regulate your television in an effort to not offend anyone lest you end up with the BORING and BLAND like most American television. I would watch Ross any day over his American counterpart Jay Leno. Watch his show when he has American stars as guests - they enjoy being on the show and often remark about how great it is.

[Robert Peffers]

Ross is a congenital idiot, so I suppose there is some excuse for him. He is, though, also a craven coward. Brand has resigned, as has the person responsible for airing the show. No length of suspension is long enough - Ross should do the decent thing and resign. Incidentally, does anyone know HIS answering machine's phone number?

[Darren]

The real issue here is not the individuals but what was said. To those who feel that the calls were harmless the question for them is how would they react if a neighbour or ex-colleague called them up several times and left that type of message about their wife/daughter/grandaughter?

As for the BBC surely they have a role as a public funded broadcaster to apply standards of decency. They cannot report on the moral decline of the Country and not expect reports of their own moral decline.

[becky]

As there were only 2 complaints actually following the show, one has to assume that the 18,000+ had either chosen to listen and be offended or were being offended by something they had not even heard. Now that these 18,000 people have diminished the worth of the TV licence by loosing the BBC both Brand and presumably all the other possible jokes of this nature; can all the people who actually found this very funny now have a reduction in their TV "tax"?

[Allan]

I agree with Darren above, and would add that 30,000+ people felt agrieved enough to complain. The content was offensive enough, but what really irks me is that an arrogant broadcaster like Jonathan Ross is being paid the sum of £17m of tax payers money over 3 years to be allowed to insult people like Andrew Sachs. He should have had his contract dissolved and sacked from the BBC. 12 weeks was not enough. If he had insulted me like that I don't think I would have taken it as well as Mr Sachs.

[JM]

In response to Steve who quoted part of my posting, no I'm not a "Leftie" (whatever that is).

A few additional points, if I may:

- I was just making the point that the harm and embarassment caused to the Sach's family has been greatly exacerbated by the media who seem to have driven this story with no thought as to the consequences for that family. No-one was talking about this until the media decided it was front page news a week after the show was broadcast. And, no, I don't believe that excuses Brand and Ross but they have apologised and action has been taken against them and their bosses.

- "Typical BBC supporter" - where did I say anything in support of the BBC?

- "Everybody's wrong except him" - firstly, I repeat, I'm not excusing Brand and Ross (I called their actions puerile and lacking judgment) but even if I was, unlike you, I don't regard people who take a different view to me as being brainwashed. In any event, as of last night, there had been 37,500 complaints to the BBC - maths isn't my strong point but in a nation with a population of over 60,000,000 that doesn't constitute "everybody".

- I don't have much affection for the Mail but that has nothing to do with its politics - if I want to read a tabloid I'll buy The Sun.

[cos kroustis]

JR is a waste of space and i find it amazing that they cant find someone with more talent to do that excuse for a show...Is there no up and coming parky about?

JR is a one trick pony with the same old crap, unfunny rude tacky jokes...get rid of him and bring someone new in...he is damaged goods..let him go to ITV or somewhere

[Stephen]

Ross should resign - but of course he won't. He won't resign from a gravy train that pays him £16,000 PER DAY ! I'll say that again in case you didn't catch it - £16,000 PER DAY. How on earth can any entertainer, let alone one paid by US, the licence payers, be worth that much? No he'll NEVER resign...he should be sacked for bringing the BBC into disrepute, as per his contract like any other individual who was working in 'real life' in the private sector would be. Can anyone imagine a CEO of a company NOT dispensing with his services for bringing his company into such disrepute ?

[Kieron]

I still can’t understand why such a large section of society is determined to pull down this country’s greatest institution. If anybody feels that the privatisation of the BBC will have positive rather than negative effects then I would strongly question their judgement. But wait, the BBC pays extortionate amounts of our tax payers money to foul mouthed arrogant gits like Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross I hear the jealous, miserable and faint of heart cry. Well I’m afraid I for one, even believing myself that they are perhaps over paid would still gladly shell out more for what they stand for in terms of exciting, intelligent and progressive humour. But wait, again I hear the old people who never listen to them and confused who don’t understand them shout . They phoned up a sweet old granddad and made sexual lewd comments about his grand-daughter! That’s disgusting! Well okay, if somebody had phoned up my grandfather and started saying things like that about my sister then I’d be more than a little peeved and I’m sure neither would find the funny side. But we’re not dealing with your average girl and Grampy here really are we. Sachs can hardly be a stranger to crude and rude humour. He did after all act alongside John Cleese for many years. Yes Monty Python were far more civilised then this childish and offensive (yes I do still feel it was offensive and actually wrong regardless) behaviour but they certainly helped to push the boundaries of taste and decency to allow the Brands and Ross’ to grow and I’m sure being in the entertainment industry anyway you get to experience some pretty challenging humour. Sachs may not have liked what happened, and I honestly don’t blame him, but it wouldn’t have disturbed him to the degree we are led to believe it should have and deep down he would have understood. And let’s not forget the poor innocent grand-daughter, the apple of his eye that poor delicate flower whose chastity was so wrongly questioned. Now I’m not saying that because she broadcasts herself as a sexual deviant that she’s fair game, but let’s not lose sight of why she was targeted in the first place. If she thought it all so bad then why go running to the biggest publicist in the country to have him plaster it all over the news, protecting her decency and that of her grandfather I’m thinking was the last thing on her mind. Profiting from the following persecution I would suggest was foremost in this case. But what all those who don’t like Brand (I don’t like Brand, he’s funny at times but he is generally a bit of an annoying s**t) and Jonathan Ross, or those who love to fire arrows at rich celebrities (and let’s face it that can be great fun too at times) don’t understand is that they are falling right into the hands of those who would sell out the soul of our nation for the sake of a phat paycheque of their own... I have to respect both Brand and Lesley Douglas for recognising this and sacrificing their positions to help try and save the BBC, but whether what happened was right or wrong, they didn’t deserve to lose their jobs. Both I’m sure will return, Douglas to a similar position back in the BBC after a couple of months and Brand, well he’ll move to a commercial station and have to go further down the route of ‘shock’ tactics to boost up the ratings, probably in a way that is extreme but not really that intelligent or important.... well done everyone, you really struck a blow for British standards this time.

[Carol]

There is such a thing as civility which these two cretins clearly lack. I would also go on to say that most "edgy comedians" (so called comedians) do too.

[AM]

My question is...what would have happened if the producer had picked up on this and decided not to air the tape...brand and ross would still have left offensive messages and casued upset but we would be none the wiser.

I'm glad their antics were punished....anyone who behaves like that should be....celebrity or not.

[brian]

Ross is smug and it demostrating his perpensity to be smug! Brand, not my personal favourite showed dignity and I commend that. The controller of radio 2 showed true faith and took the fall, this I admire you defend your team.

[H]

No, this is not an over-reaction, the two jokers have crossed the line.. they are supposed to be an example to the British Public!! Let's hope that the English Legal System would be fair and solve this mess properly so that the jokers and the public would take the appropriate positive attitude and respect towards eachother..

H

[Tony Pandy]

When will people understand that you don't have to have heard the criminally obscene broadcast by Wossy and Brand to resent it being paid for by a TV Tax that we all have to pay on pain of imprisonment? Not in my name! And the BBC is no longer this country's greatest institution. Its meagre talents and tiny quantum of quality output are spread far too thinly over far too many TV channels and radio stations. Cut them back to one TV channel (BBC1, BBC2 and BBC4 merged together) and two radio stations (Radio 3 and 4). Flog off the rest, it's rubbish. Wake up, it's 2008 and the BBC is way behind 'cutting edge' comedy TV in the USA and elsewhere. Too much pee, poo and bums from Brand and Woss have destroyed the brand. Watch Leno, Letterman and Jon Stewart for cutting and intelligent satire.

[julie]

Very surprised that not one post has been made about the disgraceful comment that perhaps Sachs would kill himself as a result of these messages. It has been said that the only person truly offended by Brand and Ross was Sachs. For anyone affected by suicide, this so-called joke was the worst of all. Interesting that, as usual, such issues are not talked about

[XXXKarenXXX]

This a.m. had the complaints up to 30,000. Must be higher now that the story is getting around to those that didn't actually hear the programme.

[Lawrence]

I think Kieren has missed the point. The BBC should have standards. It has lost them. It is not the peoples fault if it fails, it is the BBC' s fault. We pay a tax for the BBC. It doesn't have a right to do what it wants to do, when it feels like it. If it goes beyond the mark, repeatedly then the taxpayer has the right to kick it out or bring it into line. If it doesn't like being subject to the opinion of the taxpayer then it should pay its own way.
The action of Ross and Brand was not comedy it was an act of depravity. If my son had done this, I would be totally shocked and he would be in trouble. What sort of upbringing have these people had to think what they did was funny.

[Richard PS]

I was a big fan of Brand.

But recently ive began to suspect Brand may have some kind of personality disorder.

He doesn't seem to live in the real world at all and is totally self centered.

The poet on his show refuses to tour with him stating Brand is too emotionally demanding.

The lack of his regular cost host Matt was Brands undoing since it was often Matt who kept Brand from going to far, Brand has serious talent but needs a short leash.

Forget all this bs about censorship.

The basic facts are these....

Its fine for you make jokes about your sex life among your close friends, but you dont go on a radio and name the other person and make jokes about them.

You dont ring up relatives of people you have slept with and leave off colour remarks on their answer phone.

Quite frankly neither Brand or Ross seem to have any compassion or sense of decency to do this to what seems like a basically decent old man.

What the hell has sachs done to deserve being humlitated?

This has nothing to do with censorship you cant let people on TV and Radio ring people up and drag their relatives sex into the public eye.

[kelly]

i love russell and ross. a completete overeaction.... however, as a primary school teacher i would say promiscuous sex maybe not advisable for the forseable future russell, except with me !!. however, noel fielding is the man i admire along with these two comical geniusus.

[Dave]

I doubt there will be as much coverage from the BBC on for example:- the need to get appropriate equipment to our front line troops.

[Andy]

The only person who can make a criminal complaint is Mr Sachs. He clearly does not want to do this, I believe his is humiliation is being intensified by the ridiculous media coverage.

As for the Grandaughter, she sold her story to The Sun. She's milking it for more than it's worth.

[Anne]

The £6m salary paid to Ross has nothing to do with this incident or rather, it shouldn't.

Most of those who made complaints did so some time after the show when this bandwagon first started rolling. It is pretty clear that the majority never heard the radio show or even bothered to read the transcript. They are simply baying for the sack of Jonathan Ross because they don't particularly like him, are consumed with hatred at his salary and saw the opportunity to get him off air.

The BBC pay Ross £6m because he is worth it in terms of the listeners and viewers he pulls in.

And quite why people keep referring to Andrew Sachs as an OAP, as if someone becomes hallowed when they reach this point in their lives is frankly insulting to Mr Sachs. Would the call have been less disturbing if Mr Sachs was 20 years younger?

Do we really think that his granddaughter who is a burlesque dancer with the Satanic Sluts and who very swiftly hired Max Clifford to manager her 'hurt feelings and reputation" is not fanning the flames of a less than fabulous opinion of her own standards. Speaking out about the details of her intimacy with Brand is certain to protect her grandfather, this precious 'OAP' isn't it. And quelle surprise to learn that she didn't find Brand's 'performance' very good. I didn't read all her comments but no doubt there is a bit where she tells the world that Brand has a tiny penis and had difficulty getting it up as this seems de rigueur for kiss and tell stories.

There has been a surge of people rushing forward in order to get the best seats at this ludicrous guillotine and they are all happily knitting as they salivate the details.

Brand and Ross made a very stupid mistake that the show’s producer failed to pick up and stop it from airing. The pair should have been made to make an official apology to Andrew Sachs, given a sound rap over their knuckles and allowed to move on.

But instead we get total overreaction and broadcasting takes yet another step towards Stepford Wives sanitation.

Remember the Potter’s Wheel? Well I hope you liked it as before too long we’ll all be watching it again because it will be the only thing safe enough to broadcast.

[S Peacey Voice of Reason]

27,000+ people have now complained about comments left by Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross on actor Andrew Sachs answerphone. This has resulted in Russell Brand resigning his position with the BBC and has put Jonathan Ross' future in jeopardy.

On the original air-date of Russell Brands radio 2 show, there were only 2 complaints received regarding excessive swearing.

Subsequently the Daily / Sunday Mail picked up on the story and launched what can only be described as a 'hate campaign' against the two presenters and the BBC itself.

The Daily Mail has long criticised the monopoly the BBC has over publicly funded television, and especially in recent years the large sums which are paid to its biggest celebrities.

This originally small mistake made by two of our countries most well loved presenters, has deliberately been blown out of proportion by the Daily Mail (and other tabloids) - it was the moment they were waiting for to launch a high profile attack on the BBC and bring the whole organisation into disrepute.

It is extremely shocking that so many people would lodge official complaints based on what they have read in trashy tabloids, especially when the majority of complainants never actually listened to what was originally broadcast.

It is a sorry state of affairs our country is in when even the Prime Minister feels the need to comment on such a trivial situation created by newspaper editors with an axe to grind.

It is also shocking that so many people have blindly jumped on the band-wagon on the word of these newspapers.

At the time of writing this there are 27,000+ complaints about the issue, but even this large number is not cause for these presenters to lose their job - especially as the majority lodged their complaints based on hearsay.

The OfCom complaints procedure does not have a flip-side to it where-by people can show their support for these two presenters.

What this group aims to do, with the power of Facebook is to show the Tabloids, the BBC, and OfCom that there is more support in this country for Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross than the 27,000+ moaners who have nothing better to do with their lives than to find the next band-wagon to jump on and make themselves feel important.

If like me, you find Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross highly entertaining, then please join this group and pass it on to your friends. With enough groupies on here we might be able (and i know its a long shot) to get Russell his job back, and to help Jonathan move forward with his career at the BBC.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=44515164056

[cheryl bush]

To the Great British public who aired their views and brought about the downfall of Ross and Brand, 'cheers and well done all'!
To all the would be supporters of Ross and Brand -'live with it'!

[Ems Lewis]

Ross the pompous oaf should be sacked forthwith seeing that he lacks the moral courage to resign.

[ben]

I have no idea why such a big deal has been made about this, (why on earth did the primeminister comment!). Today there are plenty of television and radio shows that use prank calls as a form of entertainment, granted some are more tastefull than others, but it is all a question of sense of humour.
Different people find different jokes funny. Can anyone here actually say they have never made a joke at someone elses expense!(if you can, you are lying!)
This is not a question of JR and RB's pay either. They are payed to entertain and are payed accordingly. ASTEROTH if you can make as many people laugh as they do then maybe you are in the wrong buisiness.
Sadly this country has come to a point where people will bitch and moan about anything and everything.
If you do not like it don't listen to it.
I am highly confident that the BBC will not dismiss JR as he is still loved by many and is most probably the BBC's greatest comedy talent. And if they did I'm fairly sure another channel would snatch him up in an instant.
So to those 18,000 complainers don't listen to it. Further more please don't punnish and riddicule two people who just try to make the majority of people laugh.

[mark edwards]

To all the pro Brand And Ross lot who say 'let's move on!' I ask move on to what? We've got George Alegiah grinning and flapping his arms like a windmill when he reads the news irrespective of content, celebrity chefs spewing expletives and highly paid 'comedians' who regularly spew the same and actually think they are vey funny? The irreverence thing has gone well past its sell-by-date. Either the BBC gets back to serious television (pre-Blair) or we switch off or reconsider paying the license fee altogether. So there!

[Chris Ryder]

Its quite amusing to see how these two so called 'presenters' are looked upon by some as progressive comedy!, which by what I read from some equates to ringing up individuals and leaving disgusting remarks on someone's answerphone as long as its all stacked under the comedy banner, but as someone who is only 35 and not your stereo typical 'boring old git' which I think is what society classes you to be if you choose to take issue like this, I personally found Ross and Brand had over stepped the line and as such have recieved there due punishment for something that is not even comedy but plain outright offensive, with the very lucky escape from not being done over by the prosecuting authoritys for these prank calls if Mr Sachs or his grand daughter had choosen to proceed with criminal action, but to the point, what is at issue here is where common basic decency is thrown to the wind under the disguise of comedy but as Ross and Brand now know that hasn't afforded either of them much cover, Brand has fell on his sword and the BBC Director General telling Ross that alongside his suspension and pay stoppage he is also in the last chance saloon under a final warning!

[Stephen Shaw]

On Wednesday morning reporters inexplicably asked Russell Brand, rather than Gordon Brown, whether he was going to resign. Why?

Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross were on the radio show because the public wants to hear them. They made comments which, in the tradition of tabloid journalism, look much worse when written down and then recited with a scathing tone of voice than they ever sounded when originally uttered. Admittedly, the comments were in poor taste, but they were no worse than what you can hear on any number of programmes, including such popular shows as Never Mind The Buzzcocks, Have I Got News For You or Big Brother.

The comments were made to the answering machine of an actor famous for appearing in Fawlty Towers, a barrel-scrapingly unfunny programme which lasted just twelve episodes in the seventies. This sitcom was staple British fare, relying on national stereotypes (as well as some uncharacteristically humourless hyperactive screeching from John Cleese) to make the English public laugh at a time when it was still considered acceptable to ridicule colonials and women’s rights.

More recently Sachs has worked closely with Peter Kay, an English comedian famous for advertisements considered so offensive they had to be banned from the air (although the shockingly offensive spot in the wheelchair was inexplicably allowed to continue), and the occasional prank call. Sachs’ granddaughter – the subject of the comments made by Brand and Ross – auditioned for The Sun newspaper’s Page Three before becoming a member of the pseudo-Nazi burlesque group “Satanic Sluts”.

At the end of Russell Brand’s radio programme there were only two complaints. It took twelve days of increasing hysteria brought about by a concerted effort from that other British staple, the tabloid newspaper, and fuelled by a comment from a Prime Minister who must have been relieved to see somebody else in the line of fire, for the number of complaints to finally reach ten thousand. A day later that had nearly tripled.

How? Well, yet again, the English have shown their usual mettle in a time of crisis by pillorying somebody they had previously revered in order to feel better about their own lives. David Beckham, Michael Barrymore and the Princess of Wales are notable examples of people who at one stage enjoyed the favour of the tabloid-reading, television-watching English public, only to fall foul of The People by committing some heinous crime.

Russell Brand’s crime was not to force the value of pension funds to decrease with questionable economic management, or to propose draconian detention measures, or indeed to maintain a military presence in a foreign country, but simply to offend a race as fickle and self-important as the English.

So, are you going to resign, Mister B?

[Piemac]

AM...Brand and Ross did record an offensive phonecall to Sachs, but it wasn't necessarily left on his answerphone - the usual OM is to fake the answerphone call and then contact the "victim" for approval to air the content. So, no, if the editorial team had done their jobs, no one would have been any the wiser, or offended.

[Mike]

The BBC has not over reacted in fact they should have sacked Ross and hung out to dry any other producers that condoned this piece of premeditated obscenity. The primary reason Britain leads Europe with binge drinking, anti-social behavior, teenage pregnancies & STD's is precisely from the sort of examples we saw here. Politicians and especially New Labour have shown complete disregard to morals, law and order and penalties to the extent that teenagers have zero respect to anyone. The BBC as a mouthpiece of this government adds to this devaluing of morals and respect by serving up this pueril crap to the feral scum that roam our streets. The only way to attempt a turnaround of the countries descent into a cess pit is by heavy duty censuring. In this case all concerned need to be sacked and in the public arena of Law & Order, realistic penalties need to be introduced. At the moment, the young laugh at authority knowing full well they can get away with whatever they do and the likes of Ross & Brand just encourage it.

[Really really offended]

Yes, I'd like to say that I'm offended as well. I've tried all the other news sites trying to say I'm offended but they're just too busy with people emailing and saying they're offended. It's just too much! I just wish I could have sent this in green ink!!!

[Drew]

Well What can I say, the bored people of the uk, had nothing else better to do than complain. As it started with 2 and then some 18,000 +. **cough** English **cough.

It was a good laugh and I hope Russel goes on another broadcaster and does it again.

[Terry]

18,000 people complained cos the other 57,982,000 either couldn't give a toss or (more likely) thought it was funny. Come on Jonathan and Russell back on the bike as quickly as possible please chaps.

[Anna]

Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand are laughing all the way to the bank. They may both re-emerge on ITV and continue to annoy the hell out of many of us with their egocentric puerile humour.
It's a pity about Jonathan Ross's over inflated ego and an even bigger pity we have to pay for his ludicrous salary.
He is undoubtedly clever and quick, but he eclipses all his guests by his constant showing off. The show is always about HIM which can get excessively boring. His brother Paul is a lot more original, with a prodigious general knowledge and is far more amusing and entertaining than he is. I can think of many funnier comedians and standups than either RB or JR. They have been grossly over exposed both on radio and TV. Perhaps a long period out of the limelight will make them rethink their values and deflate their opinions of their own worth.
It will be interesting to see how they make their comebacks. Hopefully their material will show more respect for their audiences' intelligence and expectations.

[Liz]

I'm probably a bit late on this one and, undoubtedly, a bit old fashioned, but what worries me is that the perpetrators of this 'jape' lack the sense of humanity that would normally prevent the public, or private, taunting of anyone. It has to be arrogance, doesn't it?
As for those who find it 'screamingly funny', I can only hope they learn, in the very near future, that the act of deliberately humiliating people is an act of cruelty. It would, therefore, be a wise idea not to try and imitate it.

[Phill]

If the BBC are over reacting it's because the media are

[Carl]

My God, some people are so pathetic its unreal. They both made a mistake, big deal ... get over it and move on !

We all make them so why cant they? Both of them went over the top, spur of the moment thing, we have all done it before once or twice in our lifes !

Honestly how childish and pathetic, don't you think they feel bad about this and embarrased?

I mean we got a so called Government losing very important data(more than once!), and this story seems to be more important? What on earth is this Country coming to?

[Samantha]

most of the hype has come from the BBC themselve, they started the discussion on their 'Have your say' feedback column, and kept it open for several days when they normally only run topics for one day. Someone at the BBC either hoped people would support RB and JR, or was looking for a reason to get them off. I for one don't watch JR's Friday night show or listen to hi radio show because I don't like how crude he is in spite of his sometimes inspired wit. I don't listen to RB because similarly he is occasinally very good but most of the time it is childish nonsense. Apparently at 45 I am now too old for Radio 2! I shall not miss either of them.

[SORRAYA croydon]

ROSS AND BRAND ARE BOTH SHAMEFUL CRETINS, THE LESS WE HEAR ABOUT THEM THE BETTER.THERE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THINGS IN THE NEWS FOR GODSAKE SORRAYA

[Paul Stapleton]

You all seem to think that the bbc has some kind of monopoly on taste, honesty, manners - how sad!
The bbc is guilty of many corporate crimes the least of which is the news "services" who censor by omission and put forward much political propaganda and sensationalist spin.
How sad that so many people put their faith in such organisations and ultimately have expectations of any sort when all expectations should have been crushed by now.
As for the so called entertainers - nice work if you can get it! but the annual wage is mind boggling to say the least!
Why would any of you pay a licence fee to the bbc!
Absolutely laughable!!!!!!!

The bbc is a joke as are all the mind numbing programming channels!!!
Emphasis on the word programming

Grand Experiment Indeed