30,000 complaints over phone prank in UK

[Ashles]

The number one story on the news in England at the moment is this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7696714.stm

In a nutshell, Jonathan Ross (a long running and hugely popular presenter who is considered a bit edgy) and Russell Brand (a younger, more recent and more controversial but still popular presenter who is famous for his sexual exploits) made prank calls to the answerphone of Andrew Sachs (the actor who played 'Manuel' in Fawlty Towers in the the 70s).

In the calls they claimed Russell Brand had slept with Andrew Sachs' granddaughter (which apparently he actually has).

The Directr General of the BBC is being questioned by trustees!
Gordon Brown has been involved!
30,000 people have complained! (Well I can't really believe it is actually 30,000 different people).
Russell Brand has already resigned, Jonathan Ross is suspended and many are calling for his dismissal (on what grounds is a little harder to ascertain as Jonathan Ross was not the producer of the prodram and did not have final say on whether it was broadcast or edited).

Now while this isn't a particularly tasteful prank, the staggering overreaction to this by the public and media appears incomprehensible.

Prank shows are on TV all the time and I personally hate them.
Very unpleasant jokes are played on unsuspecting mebers of the public for any number of TV shows, and yet there are never any complaints about that. So is this more of an issue because Andrew Scahs is (or was years ago) a celebrity? Do they have greater legal protection than everyday folk?

And the granddaughter in question, Georgina Baillie, appears to be relishing the attention, giving interview after interview wherever possible.

A little about the granddaughter:

Georgina Baillie, the woman at the centre of the storm, is part of the four-piece burlesque dance group Satanic Sluts Extreme.
According to its website the 23-year-old and her troupe are "four of the sexiest depraved London jezebels" who put on shows which include "blood, guts, gore, sexy striptease and slutty activity."
Writing on her own web page, Baillie, who goes under the stage name Voluptua, says: "I am a member of the Satanic Sluts Xtreme and perform violent, horrific and sexy burlesque shows around the UK and the rest of Europe with my dance and burlesque troupe. .. I like to party, I don't care if you call me a waster or even a groupie because I am having so much more fun than you and living this way makes me happy."


From http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/oct/30/russell-brand-ross-baillie-sachs

I feel like I am living in a country gone slightly mad today.

[JihadJane]

I feel like I am living in a country gone slightly mad today.

Trust your feelings!

[Ocelot]

A complaint isn't what it used to be. Time was when you received a complaint and you knew that a person had researched where to send a complaint, composed what they were going to say and copied this in their best handwriting onto their Basildon Bond, put it in an envelope, paid for a stamp and taken it to their nearest post box. You knew that they'd invested at least half an hour of time and effort into making themselves heard and moreover had 30 minutes of contemplation on the matter before deciding to send.

These days a complaint means they received an e-mail, clicked a link and wrote "Sack those clowns I don't find them funny anyway!" and hit send before they'd even gave it a second thought. They probably never even tuned into the show in the first place and even in these days when listen again and you tube are there to spread the offensive material to a wider audience, they may not have availed themselves of the opportunity to judge the content for themselves before forwarding somebody else's strident call to arms, onto half their address book.

[Professor Yaffle]

Only 2 complains were made after the broadcast (both complaining about swearing). The rest came after it was splashed all over the tabloids. Blame Max Clifford (the granddaughters agent).

Just so others can know what we are talking about, here is an edited transcript of the calls and the full thing on youtube (NSFW due to some sweariness).

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/entertainment/film-tv/news/transcript-of-russell-brands-prank-call-14019386.html

[richardm]

... the tories want to have a debate about it in the House. For goodness sake.

It's now a contest to see who can out-puritan the next man. I can't remember the last time I saw such a ridiculous witch-hunt. The whole thing is beyond ridiculous.

[Ashles]

Only 2 complains were made after the broadcast (both complaining about swearing). The rest came after it was splashed all over the tabloids. Blame Max Clifford (the granddaughters agent).
I didn't know that.

Suddenly it all makes perfect sense.

Max Clifford sure has a lot to answer for. First Kerry Katona, now this...

[Travis]

Satanic Sluts Xtreme........wow. I bet it took someone a whole minute or two to come up with that catchy title.

[geni]

... the tories want to have a debate about it in the House. For goodness sake.

It's now a contest to see who can out-puritan the next man. I can't remember the last time I saw such a ridiculous witch-hunt. The whole thing is beyond ridiculous.

But it fills collum inches when all the other news makes your readers dangeriously depressed.

[SisterSmile]

You've got to be kidding !
Why would anyone take Jonathan Ross seriously on the phone ?

And I used to believe that the Brits' got the best sense of humor in the world....
Another one of life's certainties down the drain, I guess :boggled:

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Now while this isn't a particularly tasteful prank, the staggering overreaction to this by the public and media appears incomprehensible.

The overreaction is ridiculous. However to describe what they did as not "particularly tasteful" comes across as an attempt to excuse what they did. It went a long way beyond not tasteful.

Prank shows are on TV all the time and I personally hate them.
Very unpleasant jokes are played on unsuspecting mebers of the public for any number of TV shows, and yet there are never any complaints about that. So is this more of an issue because Andrew Scahs is (or was years ago) a celebrity? Do they have greater legal protection than everyday folk?

I think the big difference is that for these shows the "victim" gives their consent prior to broadcast. No consent = no broadcast.

I am also not aware of any prank show that does anything remotely similar to what Brand/Ross did.

And the granddaughter in question, Georgina Baillie, appears to be relishing the attention, giving interview after interview wherever possible.

Evidence? As far as I know she has signed up exclusively with the Sun and done a very small number of interviews with that paper only.

A little about the granddaughter:

Irrelevant.

[tkingdoll]

I read the transcript and laughed my ass off. It was puerile bad taste (which is funny) but the most important thing to remember is that pre-recorded shows contain far far worse material which is routinely edited out.

Why this was not (it should have been, a fool can see that), I don't know. Perhaps because Brand has increasingly gotten away with pranks lately, maybe the producers of the show thought this would also be OK. Maybe someone was off sick and their replacement was a vacuum cleaner. I don't know. But the issue is not whether they should have said it (you try being funny on tap. I bet you cross the line often), but why it was broadcast.

The 30,000 pathetic bleating sheeple who complained cause the Daily Mail told them to are retards. However, Brand has done the decent thing in resigning. I hope Ross doesn't, he's too interesting and influential and his shows will be a loss to TV.

[tkingdoll]

Important to note (and those baying for blood would be well to take their lead from him), Andrew Sachs responded to the apologies with grace and dignity, and for him the matter is closed. Not sure why the public continue to feel OUTRAGE but there you go.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7697988.stm

Also interesting in that interview is that Sachs claims he never gave permission for the segment to be aired, so it points even more solidly to the producer who decided to air it anyway. If anyone should quit, it should be that person. I just read that the controller of Radio 2 has quit, which is probably right. You have to take responsibility for the actions of your staff.

[Azrael 5]

Only 2 complains were made after the broadcast (both complaining about swearing). The rest came after it was splashed all over the tabloids. Blame Max Clifford (the granddaughters agent).


Clifford wasn't her agent when this story broke,maybe he is now I do not know.So none of it is his fault.

Yes the level of complaints is ridiculous-people are complaining for the sake of it,it seems.

Ashles ,I hardly think this incident is on a par with prank game shows.Swearing and being obscene to a 70 year old man about his grandaughter,then further being obscene-with sexual innuendo of masturbation about Andrew Sachs himself. Is this a harmless prank?

[Azrael 5]

FYI Jonathon Ross suspended for 12 weeks without pay.

[Professor Yaffle]

Important to note (and those baying for blood would be well to take their lead from him), Andrew Sachs responded to the apologies with grace and dignity, and for him the matter is closed. Not sure why the public continue to feel OUTRAGE but there you go.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7697988.stm

Also interesting in that interview is that Sachs claims he never gave permission for the segment to be aired, so it points even more solidly to the producer who decided to air it anyway. If anyone should quit, it should be that person. I just read that the controller of Radio 2 has quit, which is probably right. You have to take responsibility for the actions of your staff.

I'm not quite sure what happened there. As far as I can tell they did phone him to ask if it was okay if they aired it, but that he wasn't fully aware of the content of the calls at that time. He only found out when journalists contacted him after it had aired. Is that right?

[dudalb]

I can't believe the amount of coverage this is getting in the UK.
Here, in the US,some stupid "Shock Jock" getting fired is a daily occurance.
I am waiting for Howard Stern to start yelling about how the damn Limeys are ripping off his shtick.

[Professor Yaffle]

If it was just Russell Brand, you would have a point, but Jonathan Ross is not just a "shock jock". Have you seen how much the BBC pay him?

[dudalb]

Satanic Sluts Xtreme........wow. I bet it took someone a whole minute or two to come up with that catchy title.

I am convinced the Brand and Ross saw how rich the likes of Howard Stern and Opie and Anthony had gotten in the US with this crap, and decided the same gimmick would work equally well in the UK. There only miscalulation was in forgetting that the BBC is taxpayer funded, and thus a LOT more vulnerable to pressure and outrage then an American network is.

[dudalb]

If it was just Russell Brand, you would have a point, but Jonathan Ross is not just a "shock jock". Have you seen how much the BBC pay him?


NO, but look at how much Howard Stern has been pulling down for a number of years. A lot of shock jocks in the US annual income is well into the Milliions.

[Donal]

Only a few make that much, and there won't be too many more.

Another thing is a few years ago, the FCC decided that prank phone calls done by radio shows is a big no-no.

[Ashles]

The overreaction is ridiculous. However to describe what they did as not "particularly tasteful" comes across as an attempt to excuse what they did. It went a long way beyond not tasteful.
Opinion of course.
Anyway who is excusing what they did as acceptable? It is the reaction that is absurd.

I think the big difference is that for these shows the "victim" gives their consent prior to broadcast. No consent = no broadcast.
They are involved in the scene - Andre Sachs was not, it was on answerphone.
Anyway does that make it acceptable all the times these shows do something and the member of the public did NOT give their consent?
Are you implying it is only the broadcasting of such stunts which is unacceptable, not the act itself?

I am also not aware of any prank show that does anything remotely similar to what Brand/Ross did.
Phonejacker and Trigger Happy TV are two that spring to mind. I have stumbled across several others late at night but don't remember the names.
Also bear in mind we don't know what level of prank was NOT broadcast on those shows due to lack of consent.

Evidence? As far as I know she has signed up exclusively with the Sun and done a very small number of interviews with that paper only.
I seem to have read nothing but quotes from her all day today.
And taking on Max Clifford as an agent and signing up to a series of interviews with the Sun is playing this down for her grandfather is it?

Irrelevant.
It is simply incorrect to say that is irrelevant. It was surely part of the decision to broadcast in the first place.
The girl already has a media presence and a reputation for enjoying shocking and outrageous shows.This would surely have been part of the decision (albeit as it turned out an ill advised one) to broadcast.
It's very disingenuous or naive to imply that would be irrelevant.

[Francesca R]

The overreaction is ridiculous.The reaction to the overreaction is a little over the top too :)

[Ashles]

Ashles ,I hardly think this incident is on a par with prank game shows.Swearing and being obscene to a 70 year old man about his grandaughter,then further being obscene-with sexual innuendo of masturbation about Andrew Sachs himself. Is this a harmless prank?
I am again unsure why the fact that it is a 70 year old man makes it any more incorrect (I find this whole part of the 'debate' to be rather patronising to the elderly). He is clearly a perfectly able and coherent adult - his age shouldn't be a factor.

And no-one here is claimimg it is a harmless prank I think it is very weak humour and offensive to anyone who has not asked to be the brunt of it, like any other prank show.
But I am questioning why this particular prank is gaining the ridiculous level of coverage it is?

Remember when Jeremy Beadle convinced that sweet lady an alien was emerging from a meteorite in her garden?
How everyone laughed. How we all screamed with delight as she offered a cup of tea to an alien while obviously utterly bewildered and fairly scared.
Yet that was all considered fine because she lauged afterwards with all the cameras in her face.
I personally found that more distasteful than this, yet there was no outcry about that.

[dudalb]

Only a few make that much, and there won't be too many more.

Another thing is a few years ago, the FCC decided that prank phone calls done by radio shows is a big no-no.


The act has gotten old, frankly. I think the advent of the Internet,which is a lot more Anything Goes then a radio show can hope to be, has taken the edge off the shock jock.
Still, it is amusing to see the way this is totally dominating the UK news media.
Over here, it would just be "Oh, Howard/Opie And Anthony/Imus are at it again" and it would be a one day sensation, if even that.

[Cuddles]

If it was just Russell Brand, you would have a point, but Jonathan Ross is not just a "shock jock". Have you seen how much the BBC pay him?

I think this is the real point. This isn't just about being offended, if it were that I would agree that the reaction is ridiculous. The problem is that Ross, and Brand even more so, are a couple of incredibly irritating pillocks with as much talent in their entire bodies as a dead snail has in its finger, and people who have never seen them before have just found out exactly what their millions in license fees are actually paying for.

Even then it's still a ridiculous overreaction, but a bit less so, especially given how controversial the license fee is at all these days, even on the rare occasions it's used for something worthwhile.

[Nogbad]

If it was just Russell Brand, you would have a point, but Jonathan Ross is not just a "shock jock". Have you seen how much the BBC pay him?

I was mildly surprised at Ross's involvement. He is one of the main Beeb presenters with both light entertainment and serious art programmes like Film. A US equivalent might be someone more mainstream like Letterman.

Loved Jerry Sadowitz's open letter of complaint to the Beeb demanding the foul mounth c***s be removed immediately :D Sadly he has already replaced it on his rather small website with his next piece.

[Professor Yaffle]

Loved Jerry Sadowitz's open letter of complaint to the Beeb demanding the foul mounth c***s be removed immediately :D Sadly he has already replaced it on his rather small website with his next piece.

Damn, I missed it. :(

[mummymonkey]

Presumably Brand and Ross will be placed on the Sachs offender list?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Opinion of course.
Anyway who is excusing what they did as acceptable? It is the reaction that is absurd.

I believe you are deliberately downplaying the nature of what happened by referring to it as "not particularly tasteful" in the same way that the Daily Hate is playing it up as the collapse of modern civilization.

They are involved in the scene - Andre Sachs was not, it was on answerphone.
Anyway does that make it acceptable all the times these shows do something and the member of the public did NOT give their consent?
Are you implying it is only the broadcasting of such stunts which is unacceptable, not the act itself?

I am implying that the broadcasting of it without consent is NOT normal practice, which appears to be what you were implying. You asked what the difference was (and implied it was both a legal difference and because he was famous) - I answered your question.

Phonejacker and Trigger Happy TV are two that spring to mind. I have stumbled across several others late at night but don't remember the names.
Also bear in mind we don't know what level of prank was NOT broadcast on those shows due to lack of consent.

I don't watch them, but doubt that they routinely phone people and claim to have ********** their relatives.

I seem to have read nothing but quotes from her all day today.
And taking on Max Clifford as an agent and signing up to a series of interviews with the Sun is playing this down for her grandfather is it?

She is not responsible for what you read. You accused her of giving interview after interview wherever possible. Can you back that up?

Clifford's normal MO is to do an exclusive deal with one paper - sounds like he has done exactly that here. To suggest that the only reason the press are interested is because of her actions is bizarre - do you really think that they would just have left her alone otherwise?

It is simply incorrect to say that is irrelevant. It was surely part of the decision to broadcast in the first place.
The girl already has a media presence and a reputation for enjoying shocking and outrageous shows.This would surely have been part of the decision (albeit as it turned out an ill advised one) to broadcast.
It's very disingenuous or naive to imply that would be irrelevant.

Again with the excuses?

Media presence? Reputation? Sorry, that is BS. What media presence did she have two weeks ago? To all intents and purposes none - which is why many of the early reports didn't even include her name, referring to her as Sach's granddaughter because nobody would know who she was if they simply named her.

The only thing I find more ridiculous than the Daily Hate inspired overreaction is the attempt to deflect blame from those who made the calls to those who received them as if THEY are to blame for the media circus.

[dudalb]

I think this is the real point. This isn't just about being offended, if it were that I would agree that the reaction is ridiculous. The problem is that Ross, and Brand even more so, are a couple of incredibly irritating pillocks with as much talent in their entire bodies as a dead snail has in its finger, and people who have never seen them before have just found out exactly what their millions in license fees are actually paying for.

I think that "My Tax ( I know it is technically a Fee but, let's face it, the difference is miminal) Money is going for this crap?" is a major reason for the massive outrage.

[dudalb]

I understand Brand is probably going to give the US a try.
He is enterting a pretty crowded market, with the likes of Stern, O and A, and their wannabes all over the place.

[dudalb]

dp

[politas]

I am implying that the broadcasting of it without consent is NOT normal practice, which appears to be what you were implying. You asked what the difference was (and implied it was both a legal difference and because he was famous) - I answered your question.The legal difference is that Andrew Sachs did not interact with them in any way. His consent was not legally required, as he is not part of the piece, only his answering machine.

[geni]

I think this is the real point. This isn't just about being offended, if it were that I would agree that the reaction is ridiculous. The problem is that Ross, and Brand even more so, are a couple of incredibly irritating pillocks with as much talent in their entire bodies as a dead snail has in its finger, and people who have never seen them before have just found out exactly what their millions in license fees are actually paying for.

Brand may or may not be a great presenter but he has a fairly good record as a stand up comedian (eg http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=999OFGq7WwI ). He may not have the kind of talent you feel should be on radio (and a general atitude that social norms happen to other people) but he is far from talentless.

[dudalb]

The legal difference is that Andrew Sachs did not interact with them in any way. His consent was not legally required, as he is not part of the piece, only his answering machine.

THe "non consent" was major factor in the demise of the Opie and Anthony show from broadcast radio in 2002. As part of a contest they held called "Sex For Sam", couples basically, tried to make love in public places. One couple tried it in St Patrick's Cathedrial in New York, got arrested, and all hell broke lose,ended in the cancellation of the show. That the worshippers in the church at the time of the "contest" had not agreed to be in a show with possible sexual overtones was a major factor in why ABC dropped the show despite it's being fairly popular, both in NYC and in Syndication.
In their current Satellite Radio show, O and A are pretty damn careful that all participants in thier various games are volunteers.

[Ashles]

I believe you are deliberately downplaying the nature of what happened by referring to it as "not particularly tasteful" in the same way that the Daily Hate is playing it up as the collapse of modern civilization.
I don't really know what point you are trying to make here. No-one is saying that the prank is acceptable or a good idea. It is the reaction that we are discussing. No-one is defending the prank itself. You look like you want to have an argument nobody is rising to.

I am implying that the broadcasting of it without consent is NOT normal practice, which appears to be what you were implying. You asked what the difference was (and implied it was both a legal difference and because he was famous) - I answered your question.
Well then it appears you missed the point. There is obviously no legal difference. The pranks are unpleasant to anyone, yet are only reacted to when it is someone famous is the issue, yet I have never heard such a reaction to a prank like it.
You seem to be implying this is the first such prank ever played on anyone of this nature. It simply isn't.
So why the huge reaction?

I don't watch them, but doubt that they routinely phone people and claim to have ********** their relatives.
So you feel able to relatively defend the nature of pranks in programmes you have never watched? That's impressive.
Or is it that very specific prank you object to - that would be a bit weird.
And by all accounts Russell Brand actually had had sex with the granddaughter.

She is not responsible for what you read. You accused her of giving interview after interview wherever possible. Can you back that up?
She is quoted in every article on the subject. And her quotes do not seem to be attempting to calm the situation down.

Clifford's normal MO is to do an exclusive deal with one paper - sounds like he has done exactly that here. To suggest that the only reason the press are interested is because of her actions is bizarre - do you really think that they would just have left her alone otherwise?
She could be trying to calm down the furore like Andrew Sachs is. She isn't.

Again with the excuses?

Media presence? Reputation? Sorry, that is BS. What media presence did she have two weeks ago? To all intents and purposes none - which is why many of the early reports didn't even include her name, referring to her as Sach's granddaughter because nobody would know who she was if they simply named her.
But she did have a media presence - she was already known (albeit not widely) as the main figure of a stage show specialising in sexually shocking acts. Russell Brand would have known all of this.
This would have been factored in to the decision whether to broadcast. If she had been a teacher or nurse I'm sure the producers would have been more likely to veto the piece.
I do not understand why you would think her profession and projected persona would be entirely irrelevant to the decision.

The only thing I find more ridiculous than the Daily Hate inspired overreaction is the attempt to deflect blame from those who made the calls to those who received them as if THEY are to blame for the media circus.
Point missed again - seemingly deliberatey now. Another straw man.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

No-one is saying that the prank is acceptable or a good idea.[\quote]

If you pretend the prank is no different to a lot of others, then the reaction will look odd. Problem for that argument is that, unless you can show it IS like others, the argument is meaningless.


[quote]Well then it appears you missed the point. There is obviously no legal difference. The pranks are unpleasant to anyone, yet are only reacted to when it is someone famous is the issue, yet I have never heard such a reaction to a prank like it.

Which SPECIFIC prank do you think is "like it"?


So you feel able to relatively defend the nature of pranks in programmes you have never watched? That's impressive.

No, I said I doubted they were the same. If you present evidence that they are the same, then they may have some relevance. Until then...

She is quoted in every article on the subject. And her quotes do not seem to be attempting to calm the situation down.

Can I take that as a "No I don't have any evidence to back up my claim about her giving interview after interview but I don't want to admit that because it would make my attempts to paint her as the one responsible for the media outrage look a bit stupid?"

But she did have a media presence - she was already known (albeit not widely) as the main figure of a stage show specialising in sexually shocking acts. Russell Brand would have known all of this.

So anyone who has any level of public presence (and lets face it this woman had no more than millions of others in the country) is fair game? What a bizarre idea.

Point missed again - seemingly deliberatey now. Another straw man.

Your criticism has been directed at the subject of the call rather than those who made the calls. That is bizarre. No links to the stories about Brand making hoax calls to the police previously but instead a link to a story about what the subject of the calls does for a living.

You have also made unsubstantiated allegations that she is giving interview after interview and relishing the media attention. Unfortunately for you this appears not to be true. Rather than withdraw it you have stated that you have read nothing but quotes from her and that she is quoted in every article as if this is somehow her fault.

Your posts show that you have taken a view on who is to blame for the media coverage. For example you criticise her for not trying to calm the furore but not the BBC for its rabbit in the headlights impression of doing nothing for the best part of a fortnight or Brand for an initially half-arsed apology. Both, IMO, played a far greater part in leading to the media feeding frenzy than anything she did (for example you might want to check out when she gave her first interview on the subject).

[richardm]

sexual innuendo of masturbation about Andrew Sachs himself.

None of the transcripts I've seen have included this. Can you point me to where this was said? Thanks!

Is this a harmless prank?

Clearly not, since the director of Radio 2 has been sacked over it. Apart from her, though, and Brand who resigned, who was harmed? Andrew Sachs was satisfied with the apology he was originally given. Voluptua has got lots of lovely publicity and her photo all over the Mail. And the self-righteous Mail readers get to ogle said picture and enjoy another potential opportunity to rip things they don't like (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1081966/Even-Russell-Brand-row-raged-BBC-comedians-insulting-Queen.html) from the schedules (a mere 21 months after it was first screened an' all)

In my opinion this whole fuss has three things at the root of it:
1. They said obscene things to cuddly Manuel
2. ...about his Granddaughter (cue image of pretty little thing playing in gingham frock)
3. It's that foul-mouthed swine Jonathan Ross - have you seen how much they pay him?

Do I think it was an unpleasant thing to do? Yeah, it was. Do I think that it's important enough to be top story on the BBC for a week? Do I hell. Do I think that people should be losing their jobs over it? What do you think?

[Lothian]

Clearly not, since the director of Radio 2 has been sacked over it.... She resigned.

[Professor Yaffle]

Refugees from Congo Civil War ‘more angry about Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand’ (http://newsbiscuit.com/article/refugees-from-congo-civil-war-more-angry-about-jonathan-ross-and-russell-brand-396)

Refugees fleeing the Civil war in the Democratic Republic of Congo said their suffering had been made far worse this week after learning of the obscene radio broadcast made by ‘so-called’ comedians Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand. The brutal African war is entering its tenth year, but UN observers on the ground say that this week’s BBC Radio 2 scandal has left morale in the region at an all time low.

‘It was bad enough having our homes burnt out, seeing our neighbours gunned down in cold blood, and then losing limbs from land mines hidden along our escape route. But then to hear about this experienced comic actor being teased by two younger comics, on a programme no-one heard at the time anyway, well that is more than any humans should have to endure.’

....


http://newsbiscuit.com/article/refugees-from-congo-civil-war-more-angry-about-jonathan-ross-and-russell-brand-396

[richardm]

She resigned.

So she did - but the point still stands, I think.

[plumjam]

Presumably Brand and Ross will be placed on the Sachs offender list?

Yeah, for the nonce.

[Travis]

Will this be the first radio prank to be labeled a war crime?

[Undesired Walrus]

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of this case, it has highlighted the incredible amount of money Brand and Woss pull in. £200,000 per annum for a weekly two-hour show (In which the adventures of your penis can be a subject of discussion)?

I will miss Film 2008, the programme in which he truly flourishes as a mature, meaningful presenter.

For those who haven't seen it, here is his review of Clerks 2. Brilliant stuff.

HmaRxb-W4rs

[Rolfe]

There was an item on Good Morning Scotland yesterday asking exactly why the "prank" (come on - this was not kiddies knocking on a door and running away....) was so offensive.

One of the main points was the misogyny. Granted that Russell Brand had indeed been to bed with the granddaughter, what's her name, presumaby that was by mutual consent. However, the language used on air implied that sex is something that is "done to" a woman, and that as a result the woman is damaged goods. The main thrust of the telephone call was to the effect that since Russell Brand had in effect damaged Andrew Sachs's granddaughter, and hence by implication his property, then he (Andrew Sachs) would therefore be suicidal.

Now swearing on air isn't pretty.

Talking about women as objects that have sex done to them as if they have no say in the matter, and who are then regarded as damaged goods, isn't pretty.

And making "jokes" about driving someone to want to hang himself isn't pretty.

I think it's the realisation that all the licence fee money from several medium-sized towns is being spent on this stuff that has driven Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells to send in the complaints.

And I can see his point.

Rolfe.

[andyandy]

I think that the whole furore has to be seen in context of the Daily Mail and Murdoch press' anti-BBC agenda. Only today splashed all over page 2 of the Daily Mail was a new "outrage" over a joke made on Mock the Week about the Queen. The entire "scandal" has been engineered by the mail on Sunday, who have just seen it as a convenient tool in their long-running feud with the corporation. Yes, it was a pretty puerile prank and probably deserving of some sort of censure, but the over the top hysteria is simply a case of the media feeding the media for their own ends.

It would be nice if the BBC hadn't been so spineless in their capitulation to the self appointed moral majority who will just see this as encouragement to further attack the organisation. You can guarantee that the BBC will be more timid as a result, and for that we will be all worse off.

[Darat]

Personally I am outraged - I will not be happy until I see Ross and Brand disemboweled*


*£15.99 Pay-for-view SKY Box Office Monday 17th November, £17.99 Sky Box Office HD

[JihadJane]

It would be nice if the BBC hadn't been so spineless in their capitulation to the self appointed moral majority who will just see this as encouragement to further attack the organisation. You can guarantee that the BBC will be more timid as a result, and for that we will be all worse off.


If the BBC ever had any spine it was removed by the Daily-Mail-supporting Labour government after the BBC told the truth about sexed-up Iraq intelligence. Since then the corporation has been 100% rubber chicken.

[Undesired Walrus]

Frankie Boyle has now got the Tories flustered over his impersonation of the Queen:

'I'm so old, my pussy is haunted'

Strange they didn't get in a similar ruckus over his claim that it would take him 500 years to get tired of repeatedly reversing over Jeremy Clarkson's twitching corpse.

You don't like it, don't watch it.

[Ashles]

If you pretend the prank is no different to a lot of others, then the reaction will look odd. Problem for that argument is that, unless you can show it IS like others, the argument is meaningless.
How am I supposed to do that - trawl through every other prank show on TV and radio until I can provide an example that exactly matches this one to your criteria?
This type of prank has been played for decades. I don't personally find any instances of this type of joke particularly funny.

Which SPECIFIC prank do you think is "like it"?

No, I said I doubted they were the same. If you present evidence that they are the same, then they may have some relevance. Until then...
So let's see I could try and find an exact example that exactly matches this specific instance, or you could accept the concept that many pranks have been played in this way that also made the recipient feel upset or uncomfortable...
After all it was the reaction that was originbally being discussed rather than whether this was the worst instance ever played by anyone in history.

In fact there was a radio presenter (something Penk, I forget his firt name) who was defending what he did. He described his jokes as the same as this one, excapt that he made the distinction that his victims were 'nominated' by a friend or relative.
I don't personally think that distinction is particularly compelling - on top of the 'joke' itself you also create potential issues between friends/family members.

Can I take that as a "No I don't have any evidence to back up my claim about her giving interview after interview but I don't want to admit that because it would make my attempts to paint her as the one responsible for the media outrage look a bit stupid?"
That strawman of yours really is taking a battering isn't it? I never claimed she was responsible for the media outrage, I said she is not exactly helping it to calm down.
It's a bit hard to find which specific interviews Georgina Bailley has or hasn't done when a Google search for her name with interview comes up with 11,900 results.
The huge one for the Sun seems to be eclipsing everything else.

So anyone who has any level of public presence (and lets face it this woman had no more than millions of others in the country) is fair game? What a bizarre idea.
So you think millions of people in the country would react by getting Max Clifford as an agent do you?
And she is no more fair game than anyone else (I'll try this yet again in the hope your comprehension of this has somehow improved) - her persona as a sex-themed performer would have been a factor in deciding whether or not to air the section.
Do you disagree that if she was a teacher or nurse it would have made absolutely no difference to th decision?

Your criticism has been directed at the subject of the call rather than those who made the calls. That is bizarre. No links to the stories about Brand making hoax calls to the police previously but instead a link to a story about what the subject of the calls does for a living.

You have also made unsubstantiated allegations that she is giving interview after interview and relishing the media attention. Unfortunately for you this appears not to be true. Rather than withdraw it you have stated that you have read nothing but quotes from her and that she is quoted in every article as if this is somehow her fault.

Your posts show that you have taken a view on who is to blame for the media coverage. For example you criticise her for not trying to calm the furore but not the BBC for its rabbit in the headlights impression of doing nothing for the best part of a fortnight or Brand for an initially half-arsed apology. Both, IMO, played a far greater part in leading to the media feeding frenzy than anything she did (for example you might want to check out when she gave her first interview on the subject).
Okay it is clear you wat to obsess on a (mistakenly) peceived idea that I in any way feel it was more acceptable to target Ms Bailley than anyone else. It isn't. The prank was uacceptable.

But please continue to argue against your strawman further. I cannot be bothered to defend against a position I do not hold.

[zooterkin]

This type of prank has been played for decades. I don't personally find any instances of this type of joke particularly funny.


I think one difference in this case is that Ross and Brand didn't set out to make a prank phone call, there was originally a phone interview arranged with Andrew Sachs, but he wasn't at home when he was expected to be. They then left a puerile message on the answerphone, and followed it up with more, possible in a poor attempt at apologising.

What should have happened next is that they contacted Andrew Sachs, and made an apology for the messages.

Instead, someone at the BBC approved the recording as fit for broadcast. We know this, since the broadcast contained the 'f'-word, and therefore needed fairly high-level approval to be transmitted. The person who gave this approval is the person who should have lost their job, either for bad judgement, or for failing to pay attention.

[Professor Yaffle]

I don't know if this is possible, but could it bethat they HAD to broadcast it in order to avoid the presenters breaking the law?

From the Telecommunications Act: http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?&parentActiveTextDocId=2232318&ActiveTextDocId=2232391


43.
Improper use of public telecommunication system.
— (1) A person who—
(a) sends, by means of a public telecommunication system, a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or

(b) sends by those means, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, a message that he knows to be false or persistently makes use for that purpose of a public telecommunication system, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both.

(2) Subsection (1) above does not apply to anything done in the course of providing aprogramme service (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990)


Does (2) basically get them off the hook, as long as the programme is broadcast? Or am I completely misunderstanding it?

[Francesca R]

I was just wondering . . . Do I prefer moral outrage at the BBC and demands (which are met) for senior departures, . . . over attacks on its funding model (citing this sort of thing as evidence of how open to abuse and therefore untenable it is)?

I think so. Don't mind putting up with this type of circus if it means the BBC stays. It is, after all, superior to every other delivery of mainstream media out there IMO.

So this is basically fine. Let's put up with it.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

That strawman of yours really is taking a battering isn't it? I never claimed she was responsible for the media outrage, I said she is not exactly helping it to calm down.
It's a bit hard to find which specific interviews Georgina Bailley has or hasn't done when a Google search for her name with interview comes up with 11,900 results.
The huge one for the Sun seems to be eclipsing everything else.

Learn what a strawman is.

You made a specific claim - "And the granddaughter in question, Georgina Baillie, appears to be relishing the attention, giving interview after interview wherever possible."

Asking you to provide evidence to back up your claim is NOT a strawman. It's pretty standard practice, particularly when the claim that you make appears to be in conflict with the real world.

Maybe you should have spent 2 seconds more googling. For example a search on - "Georgina Bailey", interview,-Sun (i.e. which EXCLUDES those results that feature the word Sun so we don't pick up anything sourced to the one interview we know she gave) yields 497 results. Bit odd if, as you claimed, she has been giving interview after interview wherever possible.

But please continue to argue against your strawman further. I cannot be bothered to defend against a position I do not hold.

The fact I quoted your exact words show this cannot be a strawman. No matter how many times you repeat that lie.

[zooterkin]

Does (2) basically get them off the hook, as long as the programme is broadcast? Or am I completely misunderstanding it?

Sounds like it's possible, or at least plausible that someone thought so. Surely it would only have been a problem if Andrew Sachs had wanted to report it?

Charlie Brooker's rant (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/03/jonathan-ross-russell-brand)on the subject is, as usual, entertaining."As his closing joke, he performs a graphic mime of sexual acts on a butterfly."

Funniest. Daily Mail sentence. Ever.

[chillzero]

zooterkin - that was 'Ponderland' ... not this broadcast.

[zooterkin]

Oh, yes, I know, didn't mean to imply it was part of the phone call. But it's part of the rant since the Daily Mail included this description as part of their (successful) attempt to whip its readers into a frenzy of outrage.

[chillzero]

Ah, ok.
(I've read your link now, sorry :D)

That episode of Ponderland was hysterical, and particularly so in a manner that underlines what Charlie Brooker is saying. The butterfly sex description followed a whole segment about bestiality - a woman claimed that she knew her horse 'wanted it' because he would get frisky on her. The interview with this (really bizarre) woman looks like it dates back to the 70s, most of Brand's clips do. She had previously had sex with the family dog, and left her husband in preferance.

Now, I'd need to do some serious research to check this out, but it seems that this program was aired before. Yet, currently the Daily Mail is getting its knickers in a twist over Brand's extrapolation of this woman's belief that an animal being frisky immediately gives you permission, if not the directive, to have sex with it (like, for example, if a butterfly alighted on your shoulder). Even if it wasn't aired before, it was aired on Brand's show. Yet, the Mail isn't concerned about the outrageous lifestyle of the woman - it focusses instead on Brand as he is an available target.

[richardm]

A couple of months on, and I see that Russell Brand (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7836944.stm) is sounding properly repentent.

I would very much like to hear what he has to say about it all. I wonder if it'll be on telly? :D

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I found the whole thing mildly funny. Got two or three chuckles out of it. I'd be outraged if I were Andrew Sachs or his granddaughter and two idiots heaped public humiliation on me like that but otherwise, it's not a big deal.

[P.J. Denyer]

Although the tabloids have undoubtedly done all they can to stoke this fire and sentimentality towards 'Manuel' certainly plays it's part, I think it does reflect the fact that a lot of people found this very distasteful. Phoning the grandfather of your ex and bragging about having sex with her isn't a prank, if it hadn't been done by a celebrity it would have been harrasment and the perpetrators considered pond scum.

The fact that this was being paid for by a corporation funded by what is a tax in all but name stirred up a lot of long held resentment about the Beeb's seeming unaccountability to those who pay for it. Sadly the wider debate that could have come out of this doesn't seem to have materialised....:(

[Rolfe]

I still think the most offensive thing about this was the phraseology which suggested that sex was something done to a woman, as if Georgina Baillie wasn't a person who had some say in the matter. And that this (presumably consensual) encounter was presented by Brand as him having rendered Sachs's granddaughter (apparently his property, rather than a person in her own right) "damaged goods", and that as a result of this damage to his property, Sachs might be inferred to be suicidal.

The sheer mysogeny was enough to make it a hanging offence in my book.

Rolfe.

[Soapy Sam]

I had never heard of Brand prior to this business.
As far as Ross is concerned, he's one of two "entertainers" I simply can't stomach on any level, to the extent that when the GF watches him, I take my book to another room (her house, her tv, her choice, but I'm damned if I'll contaminate my brain with his inane twittering crap).
The other, incidentally, is Noel Edmonds. There are levels of BS no thinking being should be exposed to. If ever I needed a reason to refuse to buy a TV licence, these two would be more than adequate.