Should Ross and Brand get sacked?

[Regulator]

He gave Daniel Craig a 'gift' and said something along the lines of 'don't worry I used my money, not the licence payer's money, though essentially it's the same thing'.  'nuff said.

But - that was funny! He knows that everyone knows he gets paid ludicrous amounts of money - and so he jokes about it.

Both Ross and Brand can sometimes be really funny - and sometimes not, it's true. I think what they did this time was really really stupid - I think they just got carried away and were idiots. But they're popular because they make a lot of people laugh.

Which doesn't say a lot for a lot of people...

[Ariadne]

Thanks a bunch!

We all have different tastes, I'm sure there are things you like that I don't. Russell Brand can be  very perceptive and clever, though I don't expect you to believe me on that, as you've apparently decided he's for fools. I'm not a big enough fan to try to win you over, just saying that he can be good!

[Regulator]

Thanks a bunch!

We all have different tastes, I'm sure there are things you like that I don't. Russell Brand can be  very perceptive and clever, though I don't expect you to believe me on that, as you've apparently decided he's for fools. I'm not a big enough fan to try to win you over, just saying that he can be good!

I think both of them can have flashes of humour - but these seem to be few and far between.

How anyone could have found this episode funny is beyond me.  Leaving a series of abusive and childish messages on an old man's answering machine simply isn't funny to me - it smacks of peurile minds and oversized egos, who believe themselves not bound by the conventions conventions of polite society.

I'm not saying that you found this episode funny - but you have only to listen to those speaking out in support of Brand and Ross to see that there are people who think this sort of behaviour is acceptable and funny... and that, I think, says a lot about those people.

[Ariadne]

Yes, I agree, it sounds crass and idiotic - though, to be honest, I haven't listened to the actual broadcast so I'm basing my opinions on hearsay.

I don't like 'pranks' of any sort, and find them entirely unamusing. But there's a reason Ross and Brand are popular, and it's not *just* lowest common denominator stuff.

[frankly frankie]

To those who say: 'just turn off if you don't like it' - that totally misses the point here.  The offence was delivered to an individual, by telephone, broadcasting simply doesn't enter into it.  Editing it out of the broadcast wouldn't have made it 'all right'.
Everyone involved should be publicly pilloried.

And I don't mind Brand's humour - I've seen worse.  I've never quite understood the Ross phenomenon.

[Gandalf]

There's funny and there's smugly rubbing people's noses in it.  IMHO he falls into the latter category.

[LEE]

This is getting better by the minute, such bile and outrage.

Some of these comments remind me of protesters outside 'Life of Brian' screenings.
"I haven't seen the film but I know it's absolutely terrible"

If you haven't heard the actual recording then how can you attribute blame to anyone, it's quite clear that Brand didn't initiate anything.

Andrews Sachs' sweet little cherub is in the performance group "Satanic Sluts" and is widely accepted to have had the arse shagged off her by Brand.   I wonder if Sachs would also be more/less shocked if he visited her Myspace/Bebo pages.  She's entitled to do what she wants in her private life but the press are painting a picture of Brand/young grand-daughter/Paedo crime here.  He didn't make some wild comment about some unknown 6 year-old, in fact Ross blurted out that Brand had indeed fucked his 23 year old Gothic Burlesque/Stripper/Model 'girlfriend'.

None of this excuses Ross/Brand of course, they did a stupid thing but too many people seem to be hanginig on the Daily Outrage's every word.  The Daily Mail don't care about Sachs OK?  Russell Brand is a young person getting loads of sex and nothing pisses off the Daily Mail as much as young people getting laid (well, maybe young immigrant people getting laid would be the final straw)

If you don't like them that's one thing, "Gardener's Question Time" and "Smashie & Nicey Play All Your 1960's Favourite Hippy Songs Again" will be available somewhere on the dial, but lots of people do like them.

Slap on wrist required.

oooh the morale outrage!

Let's hope Brand and Ross don't do any offensive 'Dumb Spanish Waiter' stereotype gags eh?  (Mind you, he wouldn't understand, he's from Barcelona)

[gonzo]

It's not funny, it's tactless, crude and juvenile.

This is how to do it:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/ae_a6H3lOvk&rel=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/ae_a6H3lOvk&rel=1</a>

And I'd say that neither the original call or this clip are funny which is the problem; everyone has different levels of humour. Little Britain has made it's name being (not funny), "it's tactless, crude and juvenile" yet you can simply turn it off.

I think that dead ringers are the only people who've ever done it tactfully.

[clarion]

Also, it wasn't live and was aired two days later it was recorded.

That just means that the producer needs to be reprimanded too.

Absolutely!  When I made the comment about the producer upthread, I had assumed that it was live, and I know ho whard it is to rein in 'the talent' when in full flow...  

Knowing that it was pre-recorded implicates producers, editors and management, any of whom could have raised concerns.

In general: there is a limit. Just because some people find something funny, this in itself does not provide any ethical justification for the action. Simply put, humour on its own is not a defence. It's not 'edgy' (because that would imply some kind of intelligent politics at work), it was both crass and wrong. Anyone with a working brain should have been able to see that. I suspect that when you are being paid £6M a year, ethics tend to disappear off your radar, however...

This is an important point, well distilled, I think.  Humour should sometimes make us feel uneasy, and there is a place for roping in people in the public eye in a consensual way (eg Dead Ringers' hilarious telephone calls where Jon Culshaw, as Tom Baker, rang Tom Baker and Sylvester McCoy - both pre-recorded,and both cleared by the subjects before transmission).  There's also a case for taking comedy towards limits.  Mark Thomas is a brilliant example of this, with political stunts as public comedic theatre.  Sacha Baron Cohen - not a performer I admire because of his lazy racism - has dealt with the outer edges of embarrassment through Ali G etc, though he did, again, get permission from his victims.  Chris Morris was vicious in his attacks on hype & scaremongering, but it worked - both to provoke deep unease and laughs.

Have any of these crossed the line?  Did Stewart Lee, with his Jerry Springer?  Maybe, but there are crossover points between humour, which is often a release of tension at the inappropriate, offence, and that ill-defined area I would regard as too far.  Ross & Brand are in the last.

Incidentally, I was listening to The Goon Show last night.  It was one of Spike's more chaotic episodes, from about 1958.  There were a series of jokes that would have offended a lot of people at the time, and, if they had been noticed, I am pretty sure they would not have been allowed.

[Regulator]

This is getting better by the minute, such bile and outrage.

Some of these comments remind me of protesters outside 'Life of Brian' screenings.
"I haven't seen the film but I know it's absolutely terrible"

If you haven't heard the actual recording then how can you attribute blame to anyone, it's quite clear that Brand didn't initiate anything.

I have heard the recording.  Brand did start it all off by deciding to phone Sachs and have a go for him not being on the show.  When Ross then made his comment, it was Brand who decided to call back and leave further messages.  They're both as guilty as each other - they behaved like stupid little school children in the playground.

Andrews Sachs' sweet little cherub is in the performance group "Satanic Sluts"

So?  How is that relevant?  She was nothing to do with the show.  She was dragged into it by a tasteless comment passing for humour.

...and is widely accepted to have had the arse shagged off her by Brand.

By whom?  What evidence do you have to back that up?

I wonder if Sachs would also be more/less shocked if he visited her Myspace/Bebo pages.  She's entitled to do what she wants in her private life but the press are painting a picture of Brand/young grand-daughter/Paedo crime here.  He didn't make some wild comment about some unknown 6 year-old, in fact Ross blurted out that Brand had indeed fucked his 23 year old Gothic Burlesque/Stripper/Model 'girlfriend'.

What Sachs' grand-daughter does or doesn't do for a living is irrelevant.  She was dragged into this through no fault of her own.

I can't see any reference in the press to "paedo"... and dragging that sort of issue in just seems to be descending to the 'Daily Outrage' level you are accusing others of.

None of this excuses Ross/Brand of course, they did a stupid thing but too many people seem to be hanginig on the Daily Outrage's every word.  The Daily Mail don't care about Sachs OK?  Russell Brand is a young person getting loads of sex and nothing pisses off the Daily Mail as much as young people getting laid (well, maybe young immigrant people getting laid would be the final straw)

Brand and Ross didn't do a 'stupid thing' - they made a series of abusive phone calls to an elderly person.  You make think the outrage is prompted by some sort of jealousy for Brand's supposed sexual excesses, but a lot of people don't.  How would you like it if it was your parents or grandparents involved?  I'm willing to place money you wouldn't be so forgiving...

If you don't like them that's one thing, "Gardener's Question Time" and "Smashie & Nicey Play All Your 1960's Favourite Hippy Songs Again" will be available somewhere on the dial, but lots of people do like them.

Slap on wrist required.

oooh the morale outrage!

Let's hope Brand and Ross don't do any offensive 'Dumb Spanish Waiter' stereotype gags eh?  (Mind you, he wouldn't understand, he's from Barcelona)

Your final comments show why there is a need for firm action to be taken.  If people genuinely think that such behaviour is OK and just a 'slap on the wrist' is required, then they seriously need to think again.  If this means that their idols must pay the price for their stupidity pour encourager les autres, then so be it.

[Regulator]

Let's try not to use words like Rape in this thread, it's a very cheap shot, very 'Daily Mail',  and it ups the ante too much, try and get some perspective on what the 'offence' is. 

No one got raped, it's a stupid prank call at the most.

Lee...

You were the one who introduced the word 'rape' into this thread:

We aren't talking about the rape of a minor here,  let's at least get things in perspective, she is 23 and has, for all I know, been fkd by Brand in her time spent with him.

And you were the one who introduced the word 'paedo' into the thread:

...She's entitled to do what she wants in her private life but the press are painting a picture of Brand/young grand-daughter/Paedo crime here.  He didn't make some wild comment about some unknown 6 year-old, in fact Ross blurted out that Brand had indeed fucked his 23 year old Gothic Burlesque/Stripper/Model 'girlfriend'.

The words 'pot', 'kettle' and 'black' spring to mind.

[LEE]

Again you've missed the point.... and you still haven't told me about something you've done (preferably sexual  ), that I can ring up and tell your granny all about.

Consider how your granny would feel about that (never mind you) and then remind yourself it was broadcast on a national radio station. Your reaction would of course, be bile and outrage.

No one got raped, it's a stupid prank call at the most

My rape lawyer analogy is very apt, it applies to your words and not the prank call. 
 

Point to the part of my replies why I say their behaviour was acceptable and I'll point to the part where I say it was unacceptable.

[Che]

The comparison to the rape defence does suffer from the fact that rape raises such extreme emotions, that it colours the argument in a way that doesn't speak to the validity of the analogy. Lee is right in that respect. Nonetheless, defence lawyers in rape cases do raise the character of the victim, which, I think it is fair to say, is an outrage. The acceptability of Brand and Ross's behaviour, likewise, is not contingent on what Sach's granddaughter may get up to in her spare time.

However, I might add that I don't believe that, in contrast to the rape defence, you're actually suggesting that she invites or deserves her treatment, but that she can be assumed to have thick enough skin. I'd still say that hurling around the kind of shit they did is unacceptable. And even if one were to accept that she's got thick enough skin, that doesn't mean that Sachs does.

What I would say also is that when you're allowing someone's lifestyle to inform how you react to this kind of treatment of her, I'd say hesitate before suggesting a Daily Mail mentality in others.

[Hot Flatus]

. And even if one were to accept that she's got thick enough skin, that doesn't mean that Sachs does.

Precisely my point.

[LEE]

Well my point was to try and highlight the false outrage of the press, the picture painted of the despoiling of an innocent child.  Personally, if my 23 year old grand-daughter was in a Goth Burlesque/Strip Show called the Satanic Sluts and going out with Russell Brand I'd assume she was being fucked by someone if not Brand himself.   I wouldn't like someone to call me up and shout the fact out to me but I've said countless times (well, you can count them) that I don't agree with their behaviour but nobody is listening.

This is a prank phone call gone wrong.
It was a stupid thing to do.
Even more stupid considering the age/generation of Sachs.

Let's see if the morality of the press can withstand their natural urge to publish photos of a Satanic Slut with her tits out, I bet it's killing them not to publish, the great press moral dilemma, Privacy vs Tits. (That would be tits then)

Wow, imagine the Brand Show ratings this week !!!!!

What perfect publicity, I really hope it was a stunt by Brand, Ross and Sachs.

[ChrisO]

This is getting better by the minute, such bile and outrage.

Some of these comments remind me of protesters outside 'Life of Brian' screenings.
"I haven't seen the film but I know it's absolutely terrible"

If you haven't heard the actual recording then how can you attribute blame to anyone, it's quite clear that Brand didn't initiate anything.

This from a person who further up this very thread claimed newspapers do worse things every day, and when challenged admitted not to have actually bought or read one for 15 years.

[Che]

Well my point was to try and highlight the false outrage of the press, the picture painted of the despoiling of an innocent child.

That wasn't, in fact, the impression I had of the press response. But I'm not in a position to comment on the totality of that response, nor whether it might be reasonable to interpret it any other way.

So I shan't.

[border-rider]

and when challenged admitted not to have actually bought or read one for 15 years.

Is he Sarah Palin in drag ?

[Che]

The comparison to the rape defence does suffer from the fact that rape raises such extreme emotions, that it colours the argument in a way that doesn't speak to the validity of the analogy.

Association fallacy. That's the puppy. See also Reductio ad Hitlerum.

Edit: However, Lee's raising of the girl's background is also association fallacy.

[Polar Bear]

Well my point was to try and highlight the false outrage of the press, the picture painted of the despoiling of an innocent child.  Personally, if my 23 year old grand-daughter was in a Goth Burlesque/Strip Show called the Satanic Sluts and going out with Russell Brand I'd assume she was being fucked by someone if not Brand himself.   I wouldn't like someone to call me up and shout the fact out to me but I've said countless times (well, you can count them) that I don't agree with their behaviour but nobody is listening.

This is a prank phone call gone wrong.
It was a stupid thing to do.
Even more stupid considering the age/generation of Sachs.

Let's see if the morality of the press can withstand their natural urge to publish photos of a Satanic Slut with her tits out, I bet it's killing them not to publish, the great press moral dilemma, Privacy vs Tits. (That would be tits then)

Wow, imagine the Brand Show ratings this week !!!!!

What perfect publicity, I really hope it was a stunt by Brand, Ross and Sachs.

Your assertion unfortunately is wrong.  Each situation lives or dies on its merits and the facts surrouning it.    It is not the morality of the red tops in question here.  

To publish in my view would represent a gross invasion of privacy and in all probability a Moseley-esque outcome would ensue.   The girl, for whatever she does, appears to be an innocent victim in this debacle.   Brand and Ross are well and truly out of order, over the line, in breath of criminal and civil law as well as Of??? guidelines.   Probably by bringing the BBC into disrepute also in breach of their lucrative contracts too.  

No paper woudl be stupid enough to pulish I'm sure.   It would really backfire badly given the negative reception generally of the invasion.   Sachs and his grandaughter should sue the big mouths in my view as well as there being a criminal prosecution for their behaviour.

Maybe it will deter such behaviour in future should the matter be pursued further either by civil or criminal means.   I hope so.

If Brand and the girl had already had raunchy sex, videod it and made it publically accessible on weiro-fucking.com then there could be no moral outrage from her as it is already public domain.  Mr. Sachs however could still sue, and the police could still prepare a case for review by the CPS for the obscene phone calls per se.

Me?  I'd go for them.  

[LEE]

This is getting better by the minute, such bile and outrage.

Some of these comments remind me of protesters outside 'Life of Brian' screenings.
"I haven't seen the film but I know it's absolutely terrible"

If you haven't heard the actual recording then how can you attribute blame to anyone, it's quite clear that Brand didn't initiate anything.

This from a person who further up this very thread claimed newspapers do worse things every day, and when challenged admitted not to have actually bought or read one for 15 years.

Remind me where I said that, I certainly hope you aren't mis-quoting me (Lazy Journalism?)

[Regulator]

This is getting better by the minute, such bile and outrage.

Some of these comments remind me of protesters outside 'Life of Brian' screenings.
"I haven't seen the film but I know it's absolutely terrible"

If you haven't heard the actual recording then how can you attribute blame to anyone, it's quite clear that Brand didn't initiate anything.

This from a person who further up this very thread claimed newspapers do worse things every day, and when challenged admitted not to have actually bought or read one for 15 years.

Remind me where I said that, I certainly hope you aren't mis-quoting me (Lazy Journalism?)

Err....


That would be here:

The same newspapers so terribly shocked by this behaviour commit similar and worse offenses every day.

Could you quote an example from today's newspaper ?

I've only bought a few newspapers in my entire life and none for around 15 years that I can remember.

[Rapples]

But he didn't say he hadn't read one for 15 years

[Regulator]

But he didn't say he hadn't read one for 15 years

Pedant!   

[LEE]

But he didn't say he hadn't read one for 15 years

Thank You.