30,000 complaints over phone prank in UK

[Ashles]

The overreaction is ridiculous. However to describe what they did as not "particularly tasteful" comes across as an attempt to excuse what they did. It went a long way beyond not tasteful.

Opinion of course.
Anyway who is excusing what they did as acceptable? It is the reaction that is absurd.

I think the big difference is that for these shows the "victim" gives their consent prior to broadcast. No consent = no broadcast.

They are involved in the scene - Andre Sachs was not, it was on answerphone.
Anyway does that make it acceptable all the times these shows do something and the member of the public did NOT give their consent?
Are you implying it is only the broadcasting of such stunts which is unacceptable, not the act itself?

I am also not aware of any prank show that does anything remotely similar to what Brand/Ross did.

Phonejacker and Trigger Happy TV are two that spring to mind. I have stumbled across several others late at night but don't remember the names.
Also bear in mind we don't know what level of prank was NOT broadcast on those shows due to lack of consent.

Evidence? As far as I know she has signed up exclusively with the Sun and done a very small number of interviews with that paper only.

I seem to have read nothing but quotes from her all day today.
And taking on Max Clifford as an agent and signing up to a series of interviews with the Sun is playing this down for her grandfather is it?

Irrelevant.

It is simply incorrect to say that is irrelevant. It was surely part of the decision to broadcast in the first place.
The girl already has a media presence and a reputation for enjoying shocking and outrageous shows.This would surely have been part of the decision (albeit as it turned out an ill advised one) to broadcast.
It's very disingenuous or naive to imply that would be irrelevant.

 

[Francesca R]

The overreaction is ridiculous.

The reaction to the overreaction is a little over the top too

 

[Ashles]

Ashles ,I hardly think this incident is on a par with prank game shows.Swearing and being obscene to a 70 year old man about his grandaughter,then further being obscene-with sexual innuendo of masturbation about Andrew Sachs himself. Is this a harmless prank?

I am again unsure why the fact that it is a 70 year old man makes it any more incorrect (I find this whole part of the 'debate' to be rather patronising to the elderly). He is clearly a perfectly able and coherent adult - his age shouldn't be a factor.

And no-one here is claimimg it is a harmless prank I think it is very weak humour and offensive to anyone who has not asked to be the brunt of it, like any other prank show.
But I am questioning why this particular prank is gaining the ridiculous level of coverage it is?

Remember when Jeremy Beadle convinced that sweet lady an alien was emerging from a meteorite in her garden?
How everyone laughed. How we all screamed with delight as she offered a cup of tea to an alien while obviously utterly bewildered and fairly scared.
Yet that was all considered fine because she lauged afterwards with all the cameras in her face.
I personally found that more distasteful than this, yet there was no outcry about that.

 

[dudalb]

Only a few make that much, and there won't be too many more.

Another thing is a few years ago, the FCC decided that prank phone calls done by radio shows is a big no-no.

The act has gotten old, frankly. I think the advent of the Internet,which is a lot more Anything Goes then a radio show can hope to be, has taken the edge off the shock jock.
Still, it is amusing to see the way this is totally dominating the UK news media.
Over here, it would just be "Oh, Howard/Opie And Anthony/Imus are at it again" and it would be a one day sensation, if even that.

 

[Cuddles]

If it was just Russell Brand, you would have a point, but Jonathan Ross is not just a "shock jock". Have you seen how much the BBC pay him?

I think this is the real point. This isn't just about being offended, if it were that I would agree that the reaction is ridiculous. The problem is that Ross, and Brand even more so, are a couple of incredibly irritating pillocks with as much talent in their entire bodies as a dead snail has in its finger, and people who have never seen them before have just found out exactly what their millions in license fees are actually paying for.

Even then it's still a ridiculous overreaction, but a bit less so, especially given how controversial the license fee is at all these days, even on the rare occasions it's used for something worthwhile.

 

[Nogbad]

If it was just Russell Brand, you would have a point, but Jonathan Ross is not just a "shock jock". Have you seen how much the BBC pay him?

I was mildly surprised at Ross's involvement. He is one of the main Beeb presenters with both light entertainment and serious art programmes like Film. A US equivalent might be someone more mainstream like Letterman.

Loved Jerry Sadowitz's open letter of complaint to the Beeb demanding the foul mounth c***s be removed immediately Sadly he has already replaced it on his rather small website with his next piece.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Loved Jerry Sadowitz's open letter of complaint to the Beeb demanding the foul mounth c***s be removed immediately Sadly he has already replaced it on his rather small website with his next piece.

Damn, I missed it.

 

[mummymonkey]

Presumably Brand and Ross will be placed on the Sachs offender list?

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Opinion of course.
Anyway who is excusing what they did as acceptable? It is the reaction that is absurd.

I believe you are deliberately downplaying the nature of what happened by referring to it as "not particularly tasteful" in the same way that the Daily Hate is playing it up as the collapse of modern civilization.

They are involved in the scene - Andre Sachs was not, it was on answerphone.
Anyway does that make it acceptable all the times these shows do something and the member of the public did NOT give their consent?
Are you implying it is only the broadcasting of such stunts which is unacceptable, not the act itself?

I am implying that the broadcasting of it without consent is NOT normal practice, which appears to be what you were implying. You asked what the difference was (and implied it was both a legal difference and because he was famous) - I answered your question.

Phonejacker and Trigger Happy TV are two that spring to mind. I have stumbled across several others late at night but don't remember the names.
Also bear in mind we don't know what level of prank was NOT broadcast on those shows due to lack of consent.

I don't watch them, but doubt that they routinely phone people and claim to have ****ed their relatives.

I seem to have read nothing but quotes from her all day today.
And taking on Max Clifford as an agent and signing up to a series of interviews with the Sun is playing this down for her grandfather is it?

She is not responsible for what you read. You accused her of giving interview after interview wherever possible. Can you back that up?

Clifford's normal MO is to do an exclusive deal with one paper - sounds like he has done exactly that here. To suggest that the only reason the press are interested is because of her actions is bizarre - do you really think that they would just have left her alone otherwise?

It is simply incorrect to say that is irrelevant. It was surely part of the decision to broadcast in the first place.
The girl already has a media presence and a reputation for enjoying shocking and outrageous shows.This would surely have been part of the decision (albeit as it turned out an ill advised one) to broadcast.
It's very disingenuous or naive to imply that would be irrelevant.

Again with the excuses?

Media presence? Reputation? Sorry, that is BS. What media presence did she have two weeks ago? To all intents and purposes none - which is why many of the early reports didn't even include her name, referring to her as Sach's granddaughter because nobody would know who she was if they simply named her.

The only thing I find more ridiculous than the Daily Hate inspired overreaction is the attempt to deflect blame from those who made the calls to those who received them as if THEY are to blame for the media circus.

 

[dudalb]

I think this is the real point. This isn't just about being offended, if it were that I would agree that the reaction is ridiculous. The problem is that Ross, and Brand even more so, are a couple of incredibly irritating pillocks with as much talent in their entire bodies as a dead snail has in its finger, and people who have never seen them before have just found out exactly what their millions in license fees are actually paying for.

I think that "My Tax ( I know it is technically a Fee but, let's face it, the difference is miminal) Money is going for this crap?" is a major reason for the massive outrage.

 

[dudalb]

I understand Brand is probably going to give the US a try.
He is enterting a pretty crowded market, with the likes of Stern, O and A, and their wannabes all over the place.

 

[dudalb]

dp

 

[politas]

I am implying that the broadcasting of it without consent is NOT normal practice, which appears to be what you were implying. You asked what the difference was (and implied it was both a legal difference and because he was famous) - I answered your question.

The legal difference is that Andrew Sachs did not interact with them in any way. His consent was not legally required, as he is not part of the piece, only his answering machine.

 

[geni]

I think this is the real point. This isn't just about being offended, if it were that I would agree that the reaction is ridiculous. The problem is that Ross, and Brand even more so, are a couple of incredibly irritating pillocks with as much talent in their entire bodies as a dead snail has in its finger, and people who have never seen them before have just found out exactly what their millions in license fees are actually paying for.

Brand may or may not be a great presenter but he has a fairly good record as a stand up comedian (eg http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=999OFGq7WwI ). He may not have the kind of talent you feel should be on radio (and a general atitude that social norms happen to other people) but he is far from talentless.

 

[dudalb]

The legal difference is that Andrew Sachs did not interact with them in any way. His consent was not legally required, as he is not part of the piece, only his answering machine.

THe "non consent" was major factor in the demise of the Opie and Anthony show from broadcast radio in 2002. As part of a contest they held called "Sex For Sam", couples basically, tried to make love in public places. One couple tried it in St Patrick's Cathedrial in New York, got arrested, and all hell broke lose,ended in the cancellation of the show. That the worshippers in the church at the time of the "contest" had not agreed to be in a show with possible sexual overtones was a major factor in why ABC dropped the show despite it's being fairly popular, both in NYC and in Syndication.
In their current Satellite Radio show, O and A are pretty damn careful that all participants in thier various games are volunteers.

 

[Ashles]

I believe you are deliberately downplaying the nature of what happened by referring to it as "not particularly tasteful" in the same way that the Daily Hate is playing it up as the collapse of modern civilization.

I don't really know what point you are trying to make here. No-one is saying that the prank is acceptable or a good idea. It is the reaction that we are discussing. No-one is defending the prank itself. You look like you want to have an argument nobody is rising to.

I am implying that the broadcasting of it without consent is NOT normal practice, which appears to be what you were implying. You asked what the difference was (and implied it was both a legal difference and because he was famous) - I answered your question.

Well then it appears you missed the point. There is obviously no legal difference. The pranks are unpleasant to anyone, yet are only reacted to when it is someone famous is the issue, yet I have never heard such a reaction to a prank like it.
You seem to be implying this is the first such prank ever played on anyone of this nature. It simply isn't.
So why the huge reaction?

I don't watch them, but doubt that they routinely phone people and claim to have ****ed their relatives.

So you feel able to relatively defend the nature of pranks in programmes you have never watched? That's impressive.
Or is it that very specific prank you object to - that would be a bit weird.
And by all accounts Russell Brand actually had had sex with the granddaughter.

She is not responsible for what you read. You accused her of giving interview after interview wherever possible. Can you back that up?

She is quoted in every article on the subject. And her quotes do not seem to be attempting to calm the situation down.

Clifford's normal MO is to do an exclusive deal with one paper - sounds like he has done exactly that here. To suggest that the only reason the press are interested is because of her actions is bizarre - do you really think that they would just have left her alone otherwise?

She could be trying to calm down the furore like Andrew Sachs is. She isn't.

Again with the excuses?

Media presence? Reputation? Sorry, that is BS. What media presence did she have two weeks ago? To all intents and purposes none - which is why many of the early reports didn't even include her name, referring to her as Sach's granddaughter because nobody would know who she was if they simply named her.

But she did have a media presence - she was already known (albeit not widely) as the main figure of a stage show specialising in sexually shocking acts. Russell Brand would have known all of this.
This would have been factored in to the decision whether to broadcast. If she had been a teacher or nurse I'm sure the producers would have been more likely to veto the piece.
I do not understand why you would think her profession and projected persona would be entirely irrelevant to the decision.

The only thing I find more ridiculous than the Daily Hate inspired overreaction is the attempt to deflect blame from those who made the calls to those who received them as if THEY are to blame for the media circus.

Point missed again - seemingly deliberatey now. Another straw man.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

No-one is saying that the prank is acceptable or a good idea.[\quote]

If you pretend the prank is no different to a lot of others, then the reaction will look odd. Problem for that argument is that, unless you can show it IS like others, the argument is meaningless.

Well then it appears you missed the point. There is obviously no legal difference. The pranks are unpleasant to anyone, yet are only reacted to when it is someone famous is the issue, yet I have never heard such a reaction to a prank like it.

Which SPECIFIC prank do you think is "like it"?

So you feel able to relatively defend the nature of pranks in programmes you have never watched? That's impressive.

No, I said I doubted they were the same. If you present evidence that they are the same, then they may have some relevance. Until then...

She is quoted in every article on the subject. And her quotes do not seem to be attempting to calm the situation down.

Can I take that as a "No I don't have any evidence to back up my claim about her giving interview after interview but I don't want to admit that because it would make my attempts to paint her as the one responsible for the media outrage look a bit stupid?"

But she did have a media presence - she was already known (albeit not widely) as the main figure of a stage show specialising in sexually shocking acts. Russell Brand would have known all of this.

So anyone who has any level of public presence (and lets face it this woman had no more than millions of others in the country) is fair game? What a bizarre idea.

Point missed again - seemingly deliberatey now. Another straw man.

Your criticism has been directed at the subject of the call rather than those who made the calls. That is bizarre. No links to the stories about Brand making hoax calls to the police previously but instead a link to a story about what the subject of the calls does for a living.

You have also made unsubstantiated allegations that she is giving interview after interview and relishing the media attention. Unfortunately for you this appears not to be true. Rather than withdraw it you have stated that you have read nothing but quotes from her and that she is quoted in every article as if this is somehow her fault.

Your posts show that you have taken a view on who is to blame for the media coverage. For example you criticise her for not trying to calm the furore but not the BBC for its rabbit in the headlights impression of doing nothing for the best part of a fortnight or Brand for an initially half-arsed apology. Both, IMO, played a far greater part in leading to the media feeding frenzy than anything she did (for example you might want to check out when she gave her first interview on the subject).

 

[richardm]

sexual innuendo of masturbation about Andrew Sachs himself.

None of the transcripts I've seen have included this. Can you point me to where this was said? Thanks!

Is this a harmless prank?

Clearly not, since the director of Radio 2 has been sacked over it. Apart from her, though, and Brand who resigned, who was harmed? Andrew Sachs was satisfied with the apology he was originally given. Voluptua has got lots of lovely publicity and her photo all over the Mail. And the self-righteous Mail readers get to ogle said picture and enjoy another potential opportunity to rip things they don't like from the schedules (a mere 21 months after it was first screened an' all)

In my opinion this whole fuss has three things at the root of it:
1. They said obscene things to cuddly Manuel
2. ...about his Granddaughter (cue image of pretty little thing playing in gingham frock)
3. It's that foul-mouthed swine Jonathan Ross - have you seen how much they pay him?

Do I think it was an unpleasant thing to do? Yeah, it was. Do I think that it's important enough to be top story on the BBC for a week? Do I hell. Do I think that people should be losing their jobs over it? What do you think?

 

[Lothian]

Clearly not, since the director of Radio 2 has been sacked over it....

She resigned.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Refugees from Congo Civil War ‘more angry about Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand’

Refugees fleeing the Civil war in the Democratic Republic of Congo said their suffering had been made far worse this week after learning of the obscene radio broadcast made by ‘so-called’ comedians Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand. The brutal African war is entering its tenth year, but UN observers on the ground say that this week’s BBC Radio 2 scandal has left morale in the region at an all time low.

‘It was bad enough having our homes burnt out, seeing our neighbours gunned down in cold blood, and then losing limbs from land mines hidden along our escape route. But then to hear about this experienced comic actor being teased by two younger comics, on a programme no-one heard at the time anyway, well that is more than any humans should have to endure.’

....

http://newsbiscuit.com/article/refu...gry-about-jonathan-ross-and-russell-brand-396