30,000 complaints over phone prank in UK

[richardm]

She resigned.

So she did - but the point still stands, I think.

 

[plumjam]

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

Yeah, for the nonce.

 

[Travis]

Will this be the first radio prank to be labeled a war crime?

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of this case, it has highlighted the incredible amount of money Brand and Woss pull in. £200,000 per annum for a weekly two-hour show (In which the adventures of your penis can be a subject of discussion)?

I will miss Film 2008, the programme in which he truly flourishes as a mature, meaningful presenter.

For those who haven't seen it, here is his review of Clerks 2. Brilliant stuff.

 

[Rolfe]

There was an item on Good Morning Scotland yesterday asking exactly why the "prank" (come on - this was not kiddies knocking on a door and running away....) was so offensive.

One of the main points was the misogyny. Granted that Russell Brand had indeed been to bed with the granddaughter, what's her name, presumaby that was by mutual consent. However, the language used on air implied that sex is something that is "done to" a woman, and that as a result the woman is damaged goods. The main thrust of the telephone call was to the effect that since Russell Brand had in effect damaged Andrew Sachs's granddaughter, and hence by implication his property, then he (Andrew Sachs) would therefore be suicidal.

Now swearing on air isn't pretty.

Talking about women as objects that have sex done to them as if they have no say in the matter, and who are then regarded as damaged goods, isn't pretty.

And making "jokes" about driving someone to want to hang himself isn't pretty.

I think it's the realisation that all the licence fee money from several medium-sized towns is being spent on this stuff that has driven Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells to send in the complaints.

And I can see his point.

Rolfe.

 

[andyandy]

I think that the whole furore has to be seen in context of the Daily Mail and Murdoch press' anti-BBC agenda. Only today splashed all over page 2 of the Daily Mail was a new "outrage" over a joke made on Mock the Week about the Queen. The entire "scandal" has been engineered by the mail on Sunday, who have just seen it as a convenient tool in their long-running feud with the corporation. Yes, it was a pretty puerile prank and probably deserving of some sort of censure, but the over the top hysteria is simply a case of the media feeding the media for their own ends.

It would be nice if the BBC hadn't been so spineless in their capitulation to the self appointed moral majority who will just see this as encouragement to further attack the organisation. You can guarantee that the BBC will be more timid as a result, and for that we will be all worse off.

 

[Darat]

Personally I am outraged - I will not be happy until I see Ross and Brand disemboweled*


*£15.99 Pay-for-view SKY Box Office Monday 17th November, £17.99 Sky Box Office HD

 

[JihadJane]

It would be nice if the BBC hadn't been so spineless in their capitulation to the self appointed moral majority who will just see this as encouragement to further attack the organisation. You can guarantee that the BBC will be more timid as a result, and for that we will be all worse off.

If the BBC ever had any spine it was removed by the Daily-Mail-supporting Labour government after the BBC told the truth about sexed-up Iraq intelligence. Since then the corporation has been 100% rubber chicken.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Frankie Boyle has now got the Tories flustered over his impersonation of the Queen:

'I'm so old, my pussy is haunted'

Strange they didn't get in a similar ruckus over his claim that it would take him 500 years to get tired of repeatedly reversing over Jeremy Clarkson's twitching corpse.

You don't like it, don't watch it.

 

[Ashles]

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.

How am I supposed to do that - trawl through every other prank show on TV and radio until I can provide an example that exactly matches this one to your criteria?
This type of prank has been played for decades. I don't personally find any instances of this type of joke particularly funny.

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

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...

So let's see I could try and find an exact example that exactly matches this specific instance, or you could accept the concept that many pranks have been played in this way that also made the recipient feel upset or uncomfortable...
After all it was the reaction that was originbally being discussed rather than whether this was the worst instance ever played by anyone in history.

In fact there was a radio presenter (something Penk, I forget his firt name) who was defending what he did. He described his jokes as the same as this one, excapt that he made the distinction that his victims were 'nominated' by a friend or relative.
I don't personally think that distinction is particularly compelling - on top of the 'joke' itself you also create potential issues between friends/family members.

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?"

That strawman of yours really is taking a battering isn't it? I never claimed she was responsible for the media outrage, I said she is not exactly helping it to calm down.
It's a bit hard to find which specific interviews Georgina Bailley has or hasn't done when a Google search for her name with interview comes up with 11,900 results.
The huge one for the Sun seems to be eclipsing everything else.

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.

So you think millions of people in the country would react by getting Max Clifford as an agent do you?
And she is no more fair game than anyone else (I'll try this yet again in the hope your comprehension of this has somehow improved) - her persona as a sex-themed performer would have been a factor in deciding whether or not to air the section.
Do you disagree that if she was a teacher or nurse it would have made absolutely no difference to th decision?

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).

Okay it is clear you wat to obsess on a (mistakenly) peceived idea that I in any way feel it was more acceptable to target Ms Bailley than anyone else. It isn't. The prank was uacceptable.

But please continue to argue against your strawman further. I cannot be bothered to defend against a position I do not hold.

 

[zooterkin]

This type of prank has been played for decades. I don't personally find any instances of this type of joke particularly funny.

I think one difference in this case is that Ross and Brand didn't set out to make a prank phone call, there was originally a phone interview arranged with Andrew Sachs, but he wasn't at home when he was expected to be. They then left a puerile message on the answerphone, and followed it up with more, possible in a poor attempt at apologising.

What should have happened next is that they contacted Andrew Sachs, and made an apology for the messages.

Instead, someone at the BBC approved the recording as fit for broadcast. We know this, since the broadcast contained the 'f'-word, and therefore needed fairly high-level approval to be transmitted. The person who gave this approval is the person who should have lost their job, either for bad judgement, or for failing to pay attention.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I don't know if this is possible, but could it bethat they HAD to broadcast it in order to avoid the presenters breaking the law?

From the Telecommunications Act: http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?&parentActiveTextDocId=2232318&ActiveTextDocId=2232391

43.
Improper use of public telecommunication system.
— (1) A person who—
(a) sends, by means of a public telecommunication system, a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or

(b) sends by those means, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, a message that he knows to be false or persistently makes use for that purpose of a public telecommunication system, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both.

(2) Subsection (1) above does not apply to anything done in the course of providing aprogramme service (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990)

Does (2) basically get them off the hook, as long as the programme is broadcast? Or am I completely misunderstanding it?

 

[Francesca R]

I was just wondering . . . Do I prefer moral outrage at the BBC and demands (which are met) for senior departures, . . . over attacks on its funding model (citing this sort of thing as evidence of how open to abuse and therefore untenable it is)?

I think so. Don't mind putting up with this type of circus if it means the BBC stays. It is, after all, superior to every other delivery of mainstream media out there IMO.

So this is basically fine. Let's put up with it.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

That strawman of yours really is taking a battering isn't it? I never claimed she was responsible for the media outrage, I said she is not exactly helping it to calm down.
It's a bit hard to find which specific interviews Georgina Bailley has or hasn't done when a Google search for her name with interview comes up with 11,900 results.
The huge one for the Sun seems to be eclipsing everything else.

Learn what a strawman is.

You made a specific claim - "And the granddaughter in question, Georgina Baillie, appears to be relishing the attention, giving interview after interview wherever possible."

Asking you to provide evidence to back up your claim is NOT a strawman. It's pretty standard practice, particularly when the claim that you make appears to be in conflict with the real world.

Maybe you should have spent 2 seconds more googling. For example a search on - "Georgina Bailey", interview,-Sun (i.e. which EXCLUDES those results that feature the word Sun so we don't pick up anything sourced to the one interview we know she gave) yields 497 results. Bit odd if, as you claimed, she has been giving interview after interview wherever possible.

But please continue to argue against your strawman further. I cannot be bothered to defend against a position I do not hold.

The fact I quoted your exact words show this cannot be a strawman. No matter how many times you repeat that lie.

 

[zooterkin]

Does (2) basically get them off the hook, as long as the programme is broadcast? Or am I completely misunderstanding it?

Sounds like it's possible, or at least plausible that someone thought so. Surely it would only have been a problem if Andrew Sachs had wanted to report it?

Charlie Brooker's rant on the subject is, as usual, entertaining.

"As his closing joke, he performs a graphic mime of sexual acts on a butterfly."

Funniest. Daily Mail sentence. Ever.

 

[chillzero]

zooterkin - that was 'Ponderland' ... not this broadcast.

 

[zooterkin]

Oh, yes, I know, didn't mean to imply it was part of the phone call. But it's part of the rant since the Daily Mail included this description as part of their (successful) attempt to whip its readers into a frenzy of outrage.

 

[chillzero]

Ah, ok.
(I've read your link now, sorry )

That episode of Ponderland was hysterical, and particularly so in a manner that underlines what Charlie Brooker is saying. The butterfly sex description followed a whole segment about bestiality - a woman claimed that she knew her horse 'wanted it' because he would get frisky on her. The interview with this (really bizarre) woman looks like it dates back to the 70s, most of Brand's clips do. She had previously had sex with the family dog, and left her husband in preferance.

Now, I'd need to do some serious research to check this out, but it seems that this program was aired before. Yet, currently the Daily Mail is getting its knickers in a twist over Brand's extrapolation of this woman's belief that an animal being frisky immediately gives you permission, if not the directive, to have sex with it (like, for example, if a butterfly alighted on your shoulder). Even if it wasn't aired before, it was aired on Brand's show. Yet, the Mail isn't concerned about the outrageous lifestyle of the woman - it focusses instead on Brand as he is an available target.

 

[richardm]

A couple of months on, and I see that Russell Brand is sounding properly repentent.

I would very much like to hear what he has to say about it all. I wonder if it'll be on telly?

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I found the whole thing mildly funny. Got two or three chuckles out of it. I'd be outraged if I were Andrew Sachs or his granddaughter and two idiots heaped public humiliation on me like that but otherwise, it's not a big deal.