Should Ross and Brand get sacked?

[LEE]

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

Pedant!   

No, there's a difference between not reading something and not buying something to read.

I read newspapers regularly but I refuse to buy them.  If someone leaves a paper on a train for example, I'll read it.  I read papers at my parent's but I don't buy them.  I won't knowingly fund them myself.

Edit.  Many are full of lies, bigotted opinions and sensational rumour.  Thier 'crimes' are far worse than what Brand and Ross committed and yet they are free to print the same garbage each day.  Lies, rumours and half-truths about Islam, about Immigrant workers, about The Beckhams and about anyone who they know won't/can't sue.

They are in a different league to Ross and Brand and yet we are willing to hail them as moral crusaders. 

Ross and Brand = Stupid, adolescent idiots

British Press = Calculating, vicious, scum.

David Duchovny decided to sue the British “Daily Mail”, motivating that the tabloid published an untrue story about him cheating on his former wife with a tennis instructor.

The “Daily Mail” was told that the story they had was false, yet the tabloid decided it would nevertheless post it online. Even the fact that the tennis instructor herself denied the allegations didn’t deter the “Mail” from posting the news. The lawsuit basically said that “by its intentional and reckless conduct, Daily Mail has caused substantial harm to Duchovny, in complete disregard of the truth and of even a semblance of journalistic integrity.”

Keira Knightley today issued libel proceedings against the Daily Mail over suggestions that she lied about having an eating disorder.

The paper published a photograph of the actress on January 11, showing her on a beach in a bikini and referring to her slim appearance. In the same article it reported the recent death of a teenage girl who suffered from anorexia.

I'd use something else as my moral yardstick personally.

[Regulator]

Lee

I don't think anyone has defended the behaviour of the tabloids.  IIRC you were the person who introduced that element to this thread, and you were the first to use the word 'rape' and 'paedo'.

The tabloid press is crap - but that doesn't mean that what Ross and Brand did is appropriate or should go unpunished.  Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Che]

Not buying papers means that quality journalism can't get funded, and you get more of the Metro, and London Lite. You complain about the quality of news, but contribute to the development of the basest forms of journalism. You'll get what you pay for. Be sure of that.

[ChrisO]

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

Pedant!   

No, there's a difference between not reading something and not buying something to read.

I read newspapers regularly but I refuse to buy them.  If someone leaves a paper on a train for example, I'll read it.  I read papers at my parent's but I don't buy them.  I won't knowingly fund them myself.

Edit.  Many are full of lies, bigotted opinions and sensational rumour.  Thier 'crimes' are far worse than what Brand and Ross committed and yet they are free to print the same garbage each day.  Lies, rumours and half-truths about Islam, about Immigrant workers, about The Beckhams and about anyone who they know won't/can't sue.

They are in a different league to Ross and Brand and yet we are willing to hail them as moral crusaders. 

Ross and Brand = Stupid, adolescent idiots

British Press = Calculating, vicious, scum.

David Duchovny decided to sue the British “Daily Mail”, motivating that the tabloid published an untrue story about him cheating on his former wife with a tennis instructor.

The “Daily Mail” was told that the story they had was false, yet the tabloid decided it would nevertheless post it online. Even the fact that the tennis instructor herself denied the allegations didn’t deter the “Mail” from posting the news. The lawsuit basically said that “by its intentional and reckless conduct, Daily Mail has caused substantial harm to Duchovny, in complete disregard of the truth and of even a semblance of journalistic integrity.”

Keira Knightley today issued libel proceedings against the Daily Mail over suggestions that she lied about having an eating disorder.

The paper published a photograph of the actress on January 11, showing her on a beach in a bikini and referring to her slim appearance. In the same article it reported the recent death of a teenage girl who suffered from anorexia.

I'd use something else as my moral yardstick personally.

You were asked to provide some evidence to back up a claim.

You chose to answer by saying you hadn't bought a newspaper for 15 years.

Now you say you read them, you just haven't bought one.

So provide some evidence as asked.

You seem to do a fine line in half-truths yourself.

[LEE]

Not buying papers means that quality journalism can't get funded, and you get more of the Metro, and London Lite. You complain about the quality of news, but contribute to the development of the basest forms of journalism. You'll get what you pay for. Be sure of that.

That is a ludicrous argument.  Holding me responsible for the success of crap newspapers because I don't buy any newspaper, did I get that right?

Nothing to do with people actually buying crap newspapers then?

I don't buy pet cats either, what terrible feline attrocities am I indirectly responsible for?  You may as well give me all the bad news at once.

[Hummers]

I don't buy pet cats either, what terrible feline attrocities am I indirectly responsible for?  You may as well give me all the bad news at once.

Pussy eater.

H

[Che]

People who buy the Sun are responsible for the existence of the Sun, certainly. But the habit of picking up free papers on trains is exactly what justifies the business model of Metro and London Lite, and allows their existence. Those papers will always produce shit journalism, and if you want better news buy quality papers. You're not responsible for the existence of shit papers, certainly, but in complaining of the lack of quality journalism without buying quality papers, you do not make a very compelling argument.

[LEE]

I don't buy pet cats either, what terrible feline attrocities am I indirectly responsible for?  You may as well give me all the bad news at once.

Pussy eater.

H

Now, you should really have left that on my answer phone for top effect  

[Julian]

I'm going to go with a leftfield conspiracy theory here.

Brand & Ross were meant to be calling Sachs to do a telephone interview with him.  He didn't answer his phone, thus messing up their intended show, and could probably expect a bit of gentle ribbing via answerphone (remember John Prescott's failed appearance on HIGNFY and the last-minute substitution of a tub of lard?)

The fact that B&R went so wildly over the top with the 'he's fucked your granddaughter' remarks suggests either that they're total louts who don't care about their jobs, with a totally inept producer, a totally inept production team, and all of the lawyers were asleep at the time (possible), or alternatively that this was set up with Sachs' and Bailie's full consent in order to revive Bailie's flagging career as a glamour model.

The reason I think this may be the case is that only two complaints were made when the show was aired.

After Sachs' agent contacted a 'prominent Sunday newspaper' with a copy of  the complaint sent to B&R, there were a further 1585 complaints (number still rising).  (Source:  Today programme and linky.)

In the meantime, B&R get to keep their reputation as saucy bad boys, and every newspaper has an excuse to publish fruity pictures of the lovely Georgina.

Trebles all round!

[Rapples]

As usual

LIZ IS ALWAYS RIGHT

[Regulator]

I'm going to go with a leftfield conspiracy theory here.

Brand & Ross were meant to be calling Sachs to do a telephone interview with him.  He didn't answer his phone, thus messing up their intended show, and could probably expect a bit of gentle ribbing via answerphone (remember John Prescott's failed appearance on HIGNFY and the last-minute substitution of a tub of lard?)

The fact that B&R went so wildly over the top with the 'he's fucked your granddaughter' remarks suggests either that they're total louts who don't care about their jobs, with a totally inept producer, a totally inept production team, and all of the lawyers were asleep at the time (possible), or alternatively that this was set up with Sachs' and Bailie's full consent in order to revive Bailie's flagging career as a glamour model.

The reason I think this may be the case is that only two complaints were made when the show was aired.

After Sachs' agent contacted a 'prominent Sunday newspaper' with a copy of  the complaint sent to B&R, there were a further 1585 complaints (number still rising).  (Source:  Today programme and linky.)

In the meantime, B&R get to keep their reputation as saucy bad boys, and every newspaper has an excuse to publish fruity pictures of the lovely Georgina.

Trebles all round!

I'd suggest more water with it, m'lud!  


 

[Julian]

*hic!*

[LEE]

People who buy the Sun are responsible for the existence of the Sun, certainly. But the habit of picking up free papers on trains is exactly what justifies the business model of Metro and London Lite, and allows their existence. Those papers will always produce shit journalism, and if you want better news buy quality papers. You're not responsible for the existence of shit papers, certainly, but in complaining of the lack of quality journalism without buying quality papers, you do not make a very compelling argument.

That's one way of looking at it now here's the correct my way.

I don't buy newspapers because I don't like what they print.  I don't want them to use my money to produce more of it.  If I buy a newspaper, even though I don't like what they print, they will think that I did like what they printed and print the same shite the next day.  There are no newspapers that I like (hold on, is Viz a newspaper?) so I'm not buying one. 

I don't think my act of not doing something is responsible for other people choosing to buy or pick up other 'crap' (in your opinion) papers.

Where is the tick-box for "Please allocate my money to quality journalism only"

[Che]

Well, certainly if their all as bad as one another, then you should buy none of them. I think the assertion preposterous, as you've no doubt gathered, but it's your assertion to make.

[Mr Larrington]

Personally I think neither should have been employed in the first place

[Charlotte]

As usual

LIZ IS ALWAYS RIGHT

I have come to realise that life is so much easier if you just acknowledge this simple fact 

[LEE]

Personally I think neither should have been employed in the first place

Pussy eater.

H

I'm going to make damn sure Hummers gets the sack after that vicious personal attack (tastes like chicken actually)

(If only I had some sleazy photos of him wearing outrageous clothing to leak to the press and boost his flagging modelling career, impossible to find though, he's just too damn careful)

[LEE]

Oh Jesus , you can't make this up

No Tits but Basques

I thought at least the Daily Mail may hold back on the photos of showing us the Georgina photos

Ahhh, that Privacy vs Tits dilemma gets them every time

Russell Brand's fucked her you know

[Hummers]

Indeed.

Mr Sachs, Brand and Ross aside, I fail to see how this is going to damage the carreer of La Baillie who when pressed by the press for comment said something along the lines of "...I am not making any comment until I speak to my Grandpa agent.

H.

P.S.
Does anyone have any dates for The Satanic Sluts nationwide tour yet?

[clarion]

As usual

LIZ IS ALWAYS RIGHT

I have come to realise that life is so much easier if you just acknowledge this simple fact 

BUT SHE'S NOT!!

It was Roy Hattersley.

[gonzo]

The corporation said that 4,775 listeners have complained about the broadcast.

I wonder how many of the complaints came from people listening to the show?

[FatBloke]

The corporation said that 4,775 listeners have complained about the broadcast.

I wonder how many of the complaints came from people listening to the show?

Probably not many, but I bet a lot of the complainers indirectly fund the BBC.

I didn't hear the broadcast but I believe that what was said was wholly inexcusible!

[clarion]

If an elderly man is verbally abused in a forest with no one to hear, does it make a sound?

[gonzo]

[Speaking on Andrew Sachs' answerphone]

Russell Brand: Hello Andrew Sachs, this is Russell Brand … you are meant to be on my show now mate … I am here with Jonathan Ross. I could still do the interview to your answerphone. Jonathan

Jonathan Ross: Let's do it …

Brand: Man … er, Andrew Sachs.

Ross: Don't call him Manuel, that's really bad manners. I apologise for Russell - he's an idiot.

Brand: I said Andrew Sachs! Look Andrew Sachs I have got respect for you and your lineage and your progeny, never let that be questioned.

Ross: Don't hint …

Brand: I weren't hinting! Why did that come across as a hint?

Ross: Because you know what you did…

Brand: That wasn't a hint …

Ross: He f***ed your granddaughter! [laughter in the studio]

Brand: That's his answerphone!

Ross: I'm sorry … I apologise Andrew, I apologise, I can't help it, you were talking about it and it was in my head, I apologise.

Brand: Jonathan!

Ross: I got excited, what can I say, it just came out.

Brand: Right. you wait till I come on your show. Andrew Sachs I did not do nothing with Georgina … oh no, I revealed I know her name! Oh no, it's a disaster! Abort, abort! Put the phone down, put the phone down, code red, code red! I'm sorry Mr Fawlty, I'm sorry. You're a waste of space! Oh no, Jonathan …

Ross: Why did you tell me? I forgot. You mentioned her and then it was in my head and then it came out.

Brand: I know you can't be blamed for this … It's too much for you …

Ross: He is the poor man at home sobbing over his answer machine.

Brand: What's going to happen? I will get a call now from the satanic sluts.

Ross: If he is like most people of a certain age he has probably got a picture of his grandchildren when they were young and innocent right by the phone. So while he is listening to the message he is looking at a picture of her when she was about nine on a swing …

Brand: She was on a swing when I met her … let's ring back Andrew Sachs. [They call for a second time]

Ross: Hello! Manuel here!

Sachs: [his answer machine message] Sorry I can't answer at the moment …

Brand: [interrupting] … I am too busy thinking about killing myself … Andrew, this is Russell Brand. I am so sorry about the last message - it was part of the radio show, it was a mistake … The truth is I am phoning you to ask if I can marry - that's right, marry - Georgina the granddaughter.

Ross: And I would like to be a page boy.

Brand: He wants to be a page boy, we are going to have a Fawlty Towers-themed wedding.

Ross: Now you've spoilt it!

Brand: No! I made it better. I'm sorry, I'll do anything. I wore a condom. Put the phone down! Oh what's going to happen. Look I've got a mental illness. Do you think that made it better?

Ross: You will never become king rat in the Variety Club now.

Brand: Oh no, that's over for me now … Jonathan I think we've made the situation worse ... We've got to stop upsetting Manuel. This time Jonathan I'm convinced we can make it better.

Ross: Let's just sing to him.

Brand: I'll make up something as I go along…

[Third message]

Brand: [singing…] I'd like to apologise for the terrible attacks, Andrew Sachs, I would like to show contrition to the max, Andrew Sachs. I would like to create world peace, between the yellow, white and blacks, Andrew Sachs, Andrew Sachs. I said something I didn't have oughta, like I had sex with your granddaughter. But it was consensual and she wasn't menstrual, it was consensual lovely sex. It was full of respect I sent her a text, I've asked her to marry me, Andrew Sachs …

Ross: This has made it worse, you have trivialised the whole incident.

Brand: Hang up, hang up! It's trivialised it!

Ross: You know there is one way we could possibly make it better …

Brand: We can keep ringing, and even after the show's finished, kick his front door in and scream apologies into his bottom.

Ross: Hello, Manuel is not in right now. Please leave a message after the tone…

[Fourth message]

Brand: I am sorry, I am so sorry … that I had a difficult life, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry Andrew. Let's just take some time together, we can meet up.

Ross: You're making it worse, just say sorry.

Brand: Jonathan Ross is sorry as well, it was his idea … Sorry about everything that's ever happened …

[Later]

Brand: No one could have been offended by anything that went on in that show.

Ross: Who could possibly be offended by anything there? If they were they are crazy people.

Brand: If Andrew Sachs listens to his answerphone message when he gets it …

Ross: The saving grace is you didn't have anything to do with his granddaughter did you?

Brand: Oh actually I did, I slept with her, but it was ultimately undermined, not undermined, underlined with love …

[gonzo]

If an elderly man is verbally abused in a forest with no one to hear, does it make a sound?

Apparently he hadn't heard it several days ago. Assuming that he still hasn't and using the above example; If an elderly man is verbally abused in a forest which no one hears (including him), does it make a sound?