Metropol

Don't obfuscate things Stuart. It wasn't done out of malice, intended to distress or injure - but it was inappropriate and offensive to tell a grandfather that his granddaughter was "fucked" by someone.

It was "prank" - just a hideously misjudged, offensive, unfunny prank.

I was about to ask you which of those categories it fell under, stu, but now I don't need to.

James H wrote:Now, from the portion that was broadcast, none of the language used directly towards Sachs was abusive. In fact, Jonathan Ross merely stated fact. Russell Brand had indeed fucked his daughter.

Which is gutteral language which has no place as a 'throw away remark' on Radio or Television. In drama perhaps it has a value, it can't be excused imo, even in the context of 'humour' on a post watershead adult show.

Gavin Scott wrote:Don't obfuscate things Stuart. It wasn't done out of malice, intended to distress or injure - but it was inappropriate and offensive to tell a grandfather that his granddaughter was "fucked" by someone.

It was "prank" - just a hideously misjudged, offensive, unfunny prank.

I wasn't obfuscating. I have never accused either Brand or Ross of malice in any of my posts as I don't believe that was their intention. However. I think their actions (and others) were wrong to the point of gross misconduct. I am permitted that point of view and have voiced it.

Sput wrote:I was about to ask you which of those categories it fell under, stu, but now I don't need to.

I've just made it clearer, so a stress-free night for you, Sput!

You were always one to change what you posted, weren't you stu. Nevertheless it falls into none of the categories you set before.

Gavin Scott wrote:

marksi wrote:How can you possibly say that the liability for this lies with the producer?

As I said a few posts back, it seems the producer was an employee of Brand's production company, and Brand was the presenter. In what circumstances is he going to over-rule his boss?

Would the programme producer be able to sign off the show content, or would there be an internal BBC senior producer who does that?

In any event if you're the show producer then you're supposed to be responsible for what you deliver.

You can't draw the salary then say, "what was I supposed to do?" when it goes wrong.

I'm making an assumption that the radio compliance is the same as the TV compliance procedure, and an independent production requires a BBC executive producer to sign it off for transmission.

marksi wrote:I'm making an assumption that the radio compliance is the same as the TV compliance procedure, and an independent production requires a BBC executive producer to sign it off for transmission.

Then you'd have to wonder if the exec heard the material or simply signed off on an assurance.

Perhaps this broadens the need for enquiry....

Should 'talent' be permitted to appear in programmes produced by organisations with which they have an investment interest?

Edit ...
'/production' removed after investment... as it was confusing to the argument.

Sput wrote:You were always one to change what you posted, weren't you stu. Nevertheless it falls into none of the categories you set before.

Really? I'd be interested to know how broad your definitions are of 'abuse' since they aren't encompassed by the dictionary I quoted.

I'd say they were spontaneous and not intended to hurt but they were a misguided attempt at humour. That's not abuse, just naivety. Unlike most of the people commenting I was actually listening to the show, see.

Sput wrote:I'd say they were spontaneous and not intended to hurt but they were a misguided attempt at humour. That's not abuse, just naivety. Unlike most of the people commenting I was actually listening to the show, see.

You and I both know that is not an excuse for what happened on Radio 2. If you or I made a similar call there would be repercussions involving the police. The fact that Mr Sachs and Georgina have not yet pressed charges is irrelevant. We all know what has happened.

If they get away without criminal charges then they are both lucky, in my opinion. The fact that they lose their jobs is rather a sideline issue.

Brand has resigned, because he knew what he and Ross did was wrong. The BBC Radio 2 Controller has resigned and I wonder why Ross remains?

Yes, before you ask, I am jealous of someone who earns £6M a year, who wouldn't be? But I wonder what Ross does to deserve it. I have never seen any evidence of this investment for years now.