Metropol

James H wrote:No, the 2003 one refers to the 1984 one for the stipulations of the TELEcommunications act.

You will need to explain the difference between the two in terms of obscene phone calls if you have a case to make.

I don't have a case to make, you moron, merely stipulating that it was the 1984 Telecommunications Act that you should have posted, rather than the 2003 Communications Act, which merely makes reference to the 1984 Telecommunications Act, in order to make your point.

I don't have a "case to make" as I don't care either way about the whole fucking situation! I'd just rather people didn't go on about it so much!

Stuart wrote:But I wonder what Ross does to deserve it. I have never seen any evidence of this investment for years now.

Ross draws celebrities in. Without Ross doing the interview, there would be no top actors in "casual interviews" on TV. Much as I dislike his show, the style is at least different. The £6m salary is for Ross's celeb schmoozing potential, and it's why - as you said ealier - there are often good actors you like on the show.

James H wrote:I don't have a case to make...

Indeed

James H wrote:...you moron

Mmmm...typical remark.

It's all getting a bit daft now. The media has become saturated with this story, not just the news but current affairs programmes, politcal programmes, chat shows and so forth. It's infecting every aspect of our lives - I even had a dream about Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand yesterday.

Chie wrote:It's all getting a bit daft now. The media has become saturated with this story, not just the news but current affairs programmes, politcal programmes, chat shows and so forth. It's infecting every aspect of our lives - I even had a dream about Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand yesterday.

The rest I'll agree with but you having dreams about them, that's your own problem.

Stuart* wrote:

James H wrote:I don't have a case to make...

Indeed

What the fuck is wrong with you?

I merely don't have a case to make because I don't care about the situation either way.

Now piss off.

And several months after first showing and countless repeats on Dave...
Even as Russell Brand row raged, BBC 'comedians' were insulting the Queen

During the comedy show Mock The Week on Wednesday evening, Scottish comedian Frankie Boyle made a 'disgracefully foul' so-called joke.

Asked to think of something the Queen would not say in her Christmas speech, he put on a high voice and said: 'I have had a few medical issues this year - I'm now so old that my p**** is haunted.'

Article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... Queen.html

Perhaps more amusing in the article...

Buckingham Palace declined to comment.

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

This is quite revealing about how Andrew Sachs seems quite content with things and seems to be left alone.

Meanwhile, these angry old bats make me laugh
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7697598.stm

I don't get why people keep making the point that 2 people originally complained, and the rest is based on hearsay. When the racism row erupted on Big Brother, the majority of people who formed an opinion on the matter had never even seen the programme.

Ross and Brand's offensive remarks shouldn't be treated like some kind of dirty little secret that should only be confided between Radio 2, Sachs and the audience who happened to be listening at that specific moment in time.

We fund the BBC, we also therefore pay the wages of all concerned, which means that even if we aren't the target audience for that particular radio show we still have a right to complain about things we find objectionable in any aspect the BBC's output.

Andrew Sachs accepted the apology, Jonathan Ross has been suspended until January and Russell Brand has left the BBC along with R2's controller.

I'm sure the Daily Mail set have more than got their pound of flesh from this furore so they should drop it.

Chie wrote:We fund the BBC, we also therefore pay the wages of all concerned, which means that even if we aren't the target audience for that particular radio show we still have a right to complain about things we find objectionable in any aspect the BBC's output.

Don't justify how this happened, that sort of logic lead to this witch hunt. Complain if you've heard what was said and was offended but I'm more hacked off by those who didn't hear it, merely got word it was offensive and with it including the BBC and one of its highest paid talents went off on one in a "won't somebody think of the children"/"down with this sort of thing" groupthink rage.