Comments on: Has “Auntie” got it right?

By: Paul Harper

Paul Harper — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 15:19:52 +0000

“who will watch him now” asked Offended of Tunbridge Wells.

Well I will, for one. And so will the millions of people who used to enjoy watching him before the mindless hordes of vacuous Daily Mail readers got onto their blue-rinse bandwagon. Those professionally-offended minority will not dictate to the quiet and sensible majority what we watch or listen to.

Hard as it may be for them to believe, but they speak for nobody but themselves, and I find their presumption that they in some way speak for the country simultaneously insulting and worrying.

Thatcher’s dead, get over it. (You mean she’s not? Ah well, another week or so…)

By: Kay

Kay — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 15:13:15 +0000

Well at least one of the ‘ENTERTAINERS’ has been removed from the BBC…..

Pity we’re still stuck with the other. The radio was bliss yesterday, We’ve got 12 weeks to enjoy :o)

…..I’ve been asking my spouse for over a year why the BBC puts up with Ross and his rot, now I know, an £18,000,000 contract!!

By: Brian

Brian — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 01:51:56 +0000

Here is a thought experiment:
Suppose an unruly mob gathers outside Mr Ross’s family residence. Each member carries a tin of paint. At a word, the mob proceeds to decorate his house and garden by lobbing that paint at them. (gates would not stop paint being thrown!)
Mr Ross comes out to remonstrate with the angry crowd, but their spokesman simply says that the unruly crowd are trying merely to make the world a brighter place. “But my house, my garden” replies Ross. “Casualties in the cause of art” replies the crowd.

The paint is difficult to remove, some of it outlives Ross and the crowd.

Who could organise such a thing? Why the BBC of course.

By: Ann James

Ann James — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 22:07:41 +0000

Ross and Brand are in strong positions to present as role models to those younger members of society whom both government and society,in general,share concerns regarding irresponsible behaviour. A substantial amount of time, energy and resources are being spent trying to encourage these individuals to develop respect and a healthier attitude towards others. I am very disappointed to hear various celebrities and individuals, in quite powerful positions etc, comment on how funny this incident was. I felt the message being given was that it was fine for famous and well paid people to behave badly and to abuse others. Perhaps Ross and Brand need to be on the receiving end of this bad behaviour to enable them to understand the impact upon the many victims and to have a true understanding of how they have misused their power.

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 17:04:04 +0000

I think the BBC has got it right. The whole issue has been blown completely out of proportion and the witch hunt by the media is entirely unnecessary.

Whilst their actions were certainly offensive and questions should be asked as to how and why it happened, it was at the end of the day a lapse in judegment. I wonder whether Mr Sachs has in fact been more upset and harrassed by the continual media attention this has generated than the original incident itself.

By: John

John — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:51:24 +0000

No, the BBC has it wrong. Ross should be sacked outright!

By: Adam

Adam — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:30:45 +0000

Totally overhyped and to be honest I’m surprised Reuters has a “Have your say” on it…

Anyhoo, I’ve read the transcript and I don’t think what they said was that bad really.

Sachs is letting it lie, the girl in question is loving the attention and has stated in the Sun what they said was true and the papers are loving another “kick the BBC” story.

The failing was in the editorial side not the performance- unless I’m failing to understand the role of production and editing….

By: Jason

Jason — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:16:17 +0000

No, the BBC did not get it right. Yes, Ross and Brand should have been sacked before either could resign and Yes, the whole affair has been ridiculously hyped by the media.

No doubt Ross will enjoy his 3 month holiday and make up the lost cash with juicy fees for telling his “story”; Brand will get a job with another “edgy” broadcaster and Douglas will get a golden goodbye at licence payers’ expense, so all’s well with the world.

It’s a pity that Mr Sachs did not immediately declare himself to be a recent convert to Islam and “grossly offended” by the affair. The splutterings of righteous indignation from all sides and the sight of BBC managers ordered to form up in a neat queue to jump from the top of Broadcasting House would have been a nice distraction from the gloomy times in the markets.

By: Colin Neale

Colin Neale — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:10:14 +0000

Can you imagine how all this looks to the wider world? Boorish, petty but highl-paid presenters cavorting around irresponsibly while the suits make “measured, proportional responses” and are scared of losing the BBC’s cutting edge! Get real! We’ve come a long way from the days when the BBC was an authoritative voice, but I don’t think the direction travelled in light entertainment has really been the right one.

By: paulb

paulb — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 13:41:17 +0000

However stupid Ross and Brand have been, the BBC chose to still broadcast the show, so the bulk of the blame must be with them. They could and should have censored it and dealt with them internally. Sach’s grand daughter did sleep with Brand and knew what the consequences might be, and Sachs himself is famous for a xenophobic portrayal of a Spanish waiter, so no-one in the whole event comes out smelling of roses. As for the complaints, 2 on the night and 20,000 after the Daily Mail starts frothing at the mouth tells me all I need to know, and as for Brown and Cameron, don’t they have more pressing things to deal with, like the economy? It’s all rather pathetic and overblown.