I found it VERY funny! Having followed the WAY OVER THE TOP coverage for the last few days I thought I'd better at least hear it. It's here if your interested:

For me this is a media driven witch hunt. Everyone in the media seems to want to think that what they do is SO important when to the general public it, mostly, isn't. NONE of my friends/family have even brought this topic up for discussion. To reiterate, IT IS FUNNY. Andrew Sachs is a comedy actor and I'm sure on some level he found it funny too although I seem to recall that he hates being reminded of Manuel so maybe I'm wrong on that. Anyway, anyone who gets the Mails knickers in a twist is ok with me.

The dead hand of The Daily Mail is behind all this. There was 2 complaints until yesterday and next thing 1600 arrived, all, no doubt from Mr and Mrs Angry Mail Reader.

The paper is salivating over this and will only rest when the pair of them are hanging from gibots on Tower Hill!

Jonathon Ross earns even more money than the notoriously foul-mouthed editor of the Daily Mail, Paul Dacre.

Still don't think it was a funny idea but I don't want to be on the same side as the Mail.

I didn't know it was in the Mail - I never look at it. I picked it up on this site when Heppo posted about it. But I thought they were pathetic and not funny before.

I thought the guy who said it was a failure of editorial control and nothing to do with the presenters missed the point. Had the editors done their job and excised the whole sorry segment we might be none the wiser. However that does not excuse the fact that Brand and Ross made an obscene phone call to an elderly gent which would also have had an affect on Sach's wife.

... 18th October so it's been a full week before this has blown up. The Mail have been pushing this hard.

People who hate Brand and Ross generally ignore them and don't complain too much, they just vote with their feet, so were unlikely to have heard the show that this occurred on. Therefore no real complaints till the media whipped this up. It then becomes an excuse for the public to vent their annoyance at a pair of perceived overpaid talentless oafs (playing devil's advocate here of course).

The question is who do you hate more? The Mail or Brand and Ross? If you do hate The Mail more, do you still think the paper has a point? That those two went over the top, insulted a blameless elderly actor, left him some nasty messages ("He f*cked your grand daughter"- J. Ross) and basically behaved like a pair of nasty bullies?

With apologies to Team America World Police "The Mail are d*cks, Brand and Ross are *ssh*l*s and we are p*ssies. Sometimes you really do need a d*ck to f*ck an *ssh*l* ."

Sorry to be a wuss and blank out swear words, this is a polite board though and I don't want to entirely lower the tone. People annoyed at Brand and Ross pay a license fee and have the right to be furious; it is their money which is being lavished on these two. If the production staff on Radio 2 haven't got the brains to reign them in then they are leaving nasty messages on someone's voicemail then shouldn't be doing what they are doing either.

I might be hearing something different here but they are not JOKING about killing him off! The only 'crime' that Brand & Ross have committed as far as I can see is giving people who don't like them the opportunity to beat them over the head.

One thing that comes through in this awful excuse for an apology is that neither man has the wit to defend himself.

Russell Brand has always been a minor talent whipped-up into a lot of insubstantial airy froth. He generally picks on soft targets. His female namesake, Jo Brand, would dispatch him with a couple of withering remarks.

...if Russell had just pressed 1 he could have re-recorded his message without Jonathan's gaff. Sometimes it pays to listen rather than talk.

Does anyone else think there seems to be a real feeling of hate against people who are currently earning oodles of cash? I think you can really see it in the rise of football violence in the last few weeks - people are genuinely angry and frustrated to see people earn millions for not doing a great deal.I think the reaction against Ross has something to do with this and the size of his obsecene contract.

Having just popped over from the 'need a hug' debate, can i say that actually i enjoyed the whole episode with the prank calls to be honest, i'd have thought Andrew Sachs would have been well aware of who they are seeing as though he was due to be on Brands show in the first place...

fair enough Brand and Ross aren't at the cutting edge of comedy in my house, but i do enjoy their podcasts most of the time... and more the the point why is Sach's agent doing all the talking about how 'upset' Sach's was - has he no voice of his own to address any personal issues regarding the calls?

Agents, burn 'em all I say (spoken like a true , 'say it like i bloody mean it Yorkshireman' here!)

15:45
Running Away
Andrew Sachs
Actor Andrew Sachs takes a trip to London Zoo.

One because he's not funny

The other for 'professional' reasons.

Taking time out from fixing the world's economy, the Prime Minister has weighed in with his threepenn'orth.

It's from a pair of men who are old enough to know better, and who should have better taste. It's not very entertaining, being barely beyond fourth form humour, but that's all it is.

It's hardly harassment, obliging someone, who must know who the caller was, given that Brand announces himself to the answering service, and Sachs was booked to appear on the show, to press the Delete button a few times.

I'm no fan of either of these fools, but there seems to have been a rather disproportionate level of outraged ranting going on. Surely there are far more important things in the news to get hot under the collar about?

Fxxxxxxxxxxxxg marvellous. Just what I need my license fee spent on.

Just as well the government isn't looking for an excuse to 'review' the license fee.

Is there not a practical dimension to this.
If I remember rightly when Angus Deayton was sacked from HIGNFY it wasn’t directly because of tabloid tales of drug-taking, prostitutes etc. but because the revelations made it impossible for him to chair a programme which is essentially about poking fun at the misdemeanours of public figures. It simply wouldn’t have worked because the whole show would consist of jokes aimed at him.
Surely now any show that involves Jonathon Ross interacting with a live audience (a radio show that involves phone-ins for example) is going to be impossible (at least without some sort of time delay) because there’s bound to be someone who’s going to want to give him a taste of his own medicine by swearing or hurling abuse at him. And how much damage has been done to his ability to attract guests on his radio and TV chat shows? After all he’s broken one of the great showbiz taboos: a public figure is, to some extent, “fair game” (though not the extent to which Ross and Brand went) but leave the family out of it. I’m sure he’ll have annoyed a fair number of “stars” who will now be unwilling to go on his show. He’s compromised his ability to do his job.
I quite like Jonathon Ross but I think this is as good a reason as any to get rid of him. He was on a cushy number, in a very privileged position and he abused it and blew it. There are plenty of people who could fill his slots and none of us (except Ross himself) would be any worse off. Danny Baker or Stuart Maconie could do that R2 Saturday morning show a lot better than he does. There must be someone (a now more mature Chris Evans perhaps?) who could do a Friday night TV chat show (and perhaps show a bit more genuine interest in the guests rather than using them as a human prop). Nobody’s irreplaceable. I’m sure Ross could make a good living doing “corporate”.
As far as Russell Brand goes I think the web is his natural home. He could witter on as long as he wants about his sex life on a podcast and I’m sure his admirers would be delighted. The rest of us could ignore the whole thing and not have to pay for it. Perhaps he could attract a sponsor. There are plenty of commercial concerns in pursuit of the teenage retard shilling. Everyone’s a winner.

of yesterday's news is tomorrow's chip wrapper. Although the Beeb News are keeping the story going with its prominence in the bulletins. Nothing like a bit of envy from lesser paid but more qualified journalists.

Brand can easily bugger off back to Hollywood, unless he upset too many people with his Jonas Brothers faux pas at the MTV awards. Ross can always take over the Iceland ads from Kerry Katona.

Brand - Never!

caveat: JR once upon a time was unmissable (Last Resort anyone?) but now is watched while checking the cornicing.

An age thing? probably

why not txt yr pstcde to 0118 GET BENT

in an handcart, indeed

..Never his excuse of a film review prog however (bring back Barry Norman). Increasingly though his ego has inflated to helium dirrigible proportions and both the radio show and BBC 1's Friday Night with JR show are much more about him than the guests and music. Hence we are subjected so much to Ross's dubious taste in music on saturday mornings. If I hear another They Might be Giants, Bowie, Iggy Pop song I'll go spare.

I guess for me it comes down to - how would I feel if 2 highly paid, influential figures insulted my daughter in the way they did Andrew Sach's granddaughter? Really, really unhappy is the answer.

Oh, and Russell Brand? He's just a to**er!

Andrew Sachs speaks. What a nice man.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7696714.stm

...that is no reason to side with these two sniggering twerps with their 'back of bike shed' humour which would, I suspect, fail to amuse a fair number of adolescents. As has been said above, Ross is self-serving in his chat show, knows next-to-nothing about music (oh, apart from a few punk rock bands and of course the inevitable David Bowie), and thinks it is really cutting edge to swear a lot. Almost anyone could do his chat show better - perhaps allowing guests to speak without being interrupted – and, as someone said above, Stuart Maconie is far more knowledgeable and entertaining when on the radio. Mark Lamarr, ably assisted by Jo Brand, has also done a far superior job when he stands in for Ross (though he does sometimes need to know when to let others speak).
But, ultimately, I feel that these two epitomise a 'cool to be cruel' mentality, which has been allowed to pervade broadcasting. Most enlightened workplaces are rightly aware of the importance of dealing instantly and appropriately with any kind of bullying and yet somehow these overpaid, latter day Jim Davidsons are supposed to be able to get away with it because, well, they are risk-takers, pushing back the boundaries or whatever. Enough is enough.