Metropol

wells wrote:No criminal charges where bought against the pair and Mr Sachs's right and only his right to bring such charges, only if the charges where then bought the none listening members of the British public would have a right to complain.

You are forgetting that his grand-daughter also has the right to complain, and that hasn't been ruled out. So I think you mean that no criminal charges have been brought *yet*.

As a licence-fee payer I have the right to complain about any BBC programme I have seen or heard, whether at the time of the original broadcast or by any other method. While I cannot influence any decision regarding criminal proceedings, I can have a part in the debate about what the BBC broadcast and it should be justly recognised as such.

Stuart* wrote: As a licence-fee payer I have the right to complain about any BBC programme I have seen or heard, whether at the time of the original broadcast or by any other method. While I cannot influence any decision regarding criminal proceedings, I can have a part in the debate about what the BBC broadcast and it should be justly recognised as such.

Yes, you can. So can I as a fan of Russ and Ross, for the treatment they have received just to please the Daily Mail gang.

interesting to note that she, who was so offended by her actions being aired, has now gone into loads of lovely detail in the papers about them. hypocrite.

I am enjoying the mail's moaning about how evil and offensive THE ENTIRE BBC is. The thing about one whingebag complaining about love soup and a scene involving a woman and a dog being ignored by Ofcom is also quite funny.

wells wrote:

Stuart* wrote: As a licence-fee payer I have the right to complain about any BBC programme I have seen or heard, whether at the time of the original broadcast or by any other method. While I cannot influence any decision regarding criminal proceedings, I can have a part in the debate about what the BBC broadcast and it should be justly recognised as such.

Yes, you can. So can I as a fan of Russ and Ross, for the treatment they have received just to please the Daily Mail gang.

The only difference is, the Brand fans probably aren't the type of people who'd bother writing to a broadcaster or regulator and complaining.

wells wrote:Yes, you can. So can I as a fan of Russ and Ross, for the treatment they have received just to please the Daily Mail gang.

By default you must also be heard in this debate. I am yet to see any sort of justification from their 'supporters'.

Everyone has accepted that what they did was wrong, including all those involved, except perhaps the Controller of BBC Radio 2 who is standing by her production staff. I'm struggling to understand how you justify their actions on the basis of how they have been treated 'unfairly' after the event by the Daily Mail vigilantes.

Brand/Ross alone decided to make the calls, which they obviously regret, that's undoubted. Confession and remorse doesn't negate the act, it simply makes some form of personal reparation to the victims. The rest is for the BBC, Ofcom and the CPS (perhaps) to resolve.

wells wrote:The only difference is, the Brand fans probably aren't the type of people who'd bother writing to a broadcaster or regulator and complaining.

Brand had a 'young' audience, so I suspect they are more capable of making their feelings known through the internet than any of the age 50+ licence-payers that are allegedly making the 34,000+ complaints.

The whole argument is getting muddled here.

It's Mr Sachs and his family who were at the receiving end of this poor-taste "prank", and from everything I have heard them say it seems clear that they were offended, even "betrayed" according to Georgina. It seems odd to me to hear forumers here and at the other place say this is a "fuss over nothing". Its not really for them to make that determination, is it?

And I'm even less clear about this apparent "statute of limitation" people are suggesting - in essence: if you didn't see or hear it live then you have no right to complain.

Well that's bollocks, isn't it.

I could pick up a copy of the Mail from three weeks ago and complain if I read some ghastly editorial on a matter I felt strongly about. I could browse the iPlayer and watch a programme from 7 days ago and pick up the phone and complain. Just because you didn't catch it live doesn't alter your view of what went on air.

I didn't hear it live and I found it objectionable - and given I contribute to Ross' £6M contract I feel I'm entitled to say something.

Over the past couple of months, the letters pages of all newspapers have been filled with comments about bankers who gain million pound bonuses being rewarded for poor performance.

Well - what's the difference? Arguably people are *more* entitled to complain here, given the assumption that we are all BBC Licence payers.

And by the way - I'm as far from a Mail reader as you can possibly get - and I don't much appreciate being dismissed as a reactionary middle-England sheep. I'm an intelligent man and I don't dance to anyone else's tune.

So if someone wants to challenge my views, go ahead - but don't dismiss me as one of a crowd of numbskulls.

I don't really mind if a great chunk of the UK disagrees with what is considered "funny" or "offensive" (or anywhere in between), but I do object to being told I'm not within my rights to complain.

Lesley Douglas ... Controller BBC Radio Two ... Resigned today.

DVB Cornwall wrote:Lesley Douglas ... Controller BBC Radio Two ... Resigned today.

Well, I can only hope that Ross follows.

*I DON'T CARE*

As I have previously said in another place, there are far more important things going on in the world than this relatively minor complaint. Are we that obsessed with celebrity that we ignore the REAL suffering of those in Congo at the moment?

This is a very small problem. The only problem I have with JRoss and Brand is that they are messing up regular news coverage with this silly story.

It is interesting, the notion of "we pay the license fee so we have a right to complain". We also pay for the police. So, therefore, if in Surrey, I hear that a crime has been committed and feel that the police were unnecessarily harsh to the suspect, I could complain without ever having witnessed the assault?

If people made this much fuss about real political goings on the country wouldn't be in such a shit state.

James H wrote:It is interesting, the notion of "we pay the license fee so we have a right to complain". We also pay for the police. So, therefore, if in Surrey, I hear that a crime has been committed and feel that the police were unnecessarily harsh to the suspect, I could complain without ever having witnessed the assault?

Well of course you could! Did you witness the Rodney King assault? No - like the rest of society you heard about it after the fact - and that caused riots for exactly the scenario you describe.

It may be that the media have other, more "worthy" stories to lead the news with, but that doesn't mean that this should be swept aside.

BBC News: 12 weeks without pay for Ross while this is being considered. I suppose that's the best licence-payers could expect at this stage. There is a process to follow.