Should Brand and Ross have been suspended?
Typical. I go away for four days and a mega-big comedy story breaks out across the media like a bad rash. I stayed in touch with the Ross/Brand Granddaughtergate controversy in Spain and driving back from the airport just heard that the presenters have been suspended pending an immediate enquiry.
Now this is an odd one. Andrew Sachs has said that he doesn't want to take the matter any further, but there have been so many calls for the sacking of Ross and Brand – although only two complaints about the show before the story appeared in the press – that the BBC's Director-General, Mark Thompson has been forced to act swiftly.
I can't see Ross – the highest paid face in the BBC's history – being given the boot, though it may not help when his next pay negotiations come round. He is firstly too important and secondly there would be an even greater outcry if the licence-payer had to fork out the compensation for his contract being terminated. There is some talk about his remarks amounting to gross misconduct, but that might be for m'learned friends to discuss at the licence-payer's expense too.
As for Russell Brand his C4 series is still going ahead as planned, while his appearance on Never Mind The Buzzcocks will be shelved pending the enquiry results, which rather harshly harms all the other guests too. And now, hot off the airwaves, Brand appears to have done the decent thing and resigned from his £200,000 pa Radio 2 show, effectively taking full responsibility. With his Hollywood career taking off, however, and a big live tour planned for 2009, this may not be too much of a wrench. It may even give him some material for his stage show.
Regarding morality, Ross should have known better. Brand, on the other hand, has been marketed as an edit-free rock and roll lothario so his outrageous off-the-cuff remarks are surely part of his Unique Selling Point. Maybe he should wash his mouth out with soap or maybe they should both donate a wodge of earnings to the forthcoming Children In Need and put in an appearance in the stocks, wth Sachs' granddaughter chucking the rotten tomatoes.
Anyway, at least this whole matter has stopped us thinking about global economic meltdown for a while. After another few rounds of Beeb-bashing it may blow over. Ross will surely survive after, at the most, some kind of reprimand. In fact if it was possible I would suggest buying shares in Ross now while they are rock bottom.
So, what do readers think? Has the Beeb done the right thing in suspending them and if not, what should have been done?
I agree. Sure the spur of the moment comment from Ross, and the subsequent additional 3 calls were a BIG mistake.
But, if the comments had been directed at Heather Mills, (such as the 'I bet she has 2 legs' slur from a stage appearence), the whole community would have made a sharp intake, then laughed outloud.
I think the point is the manner of the 'offence', and the person it was directed at.
Sure Ross SHOULD have known better, and in fact if you heard the programme there was a glimmer of regret there.
But these guys are paid to do this kind of thing.
Shame about Brand though - Ilove his PodCast
Posted by: Simon Jenkins | 29/10/2008 at 06:51 PM
What is "too important" about J Ross?
Sort him out and then get after plain rudeness folk such as Ann(e) Robinson.
Posted by: Michael King | 29/10/2008 at 06:55 PM
I was very sorry to hear these comments about a young lady. Though I don't think either of the men should be sacked. However, I think they should think very hard before saying something specific about a person. How dreadful a thing to hear about your granddaughter. I would be mortified. They have now had 'their hands slapped' and really need to make a big apology the the young lady concerned and her family.
They are both really talented and indeed very funny men. But they are both old enough to know better and should have respect and integrity for other peoples feelings.
Posted by: June Watson | 29/10/2008 at 07:12 PM
I think they should both be suspended without pay, severely reprimanded and HUGE fines imposed, plus a cut in salary. It is not just about this show - this is the last straw about these two pathetic 'comedians'.
We are fed up with lewd comments that are supposed to be jokes. OK it might amuse some who are of the same intelligence but there are many who are not amused one iota.
As has been said, BBC cannot afford to sack him - why does he get compensation when it is he who has broken his contract as surely there must be a few rules about what is permissable?
But of course, Ross is the BBC golden boy so nothing much will happen. He will say he is sorry but what is that worth - he is probably only saying it in the hopes he will keep his job!
Posted by: Jennie | 29/10/2008 at 07:23 PM
Brand's and Ross's "prank" was, at best, mean-spirited and puerile; based on the "let's see what we can get away with" style in its worst application. Nasty, self-centred creatures. Hardly entertainment, in some countries could have resulted in imprisonment, and probably contravened any number of laws in our country. Why Mr Sachs? What did he do to deserve that. Maybe just an easy target for the cowardly. Could have been you or me. I wonder what would have been the outcome if they'd chosen a police chief constable, the Royal family, or the family of a soldier serving in Afghanistan of Iraq. I'll support the BBC on pretty much everything and gladly pay up the licence fee but there has to be a restraining element of "do no harm". I could even look forward to a worthwhile fatwah coming on here. No, a smirking "sorry" don't cut the mouthwash (if I may be pardoned the misquote)!!
Posted by: Stuart Braidford | 29/10/2008 at 07:38 PM
How many of the 27,000+ people who complained heard the initial broadcast ? I get the impression that many have listened to the podcast purely to legitimise their anger. It's like paying up for Adult only channels on Sky simply to complain there is nudity on the screen !
Posted by: matt | 30/10/2008 at 10:30 AM
The TV tax should be scrapped. Meanwhile, fine Brand and Woosy and give every TV tax payer some tax back!!!! Abolish public broadcasting.
Posted by: taxfreetv | 30/10/2008 at 11:24 AM
I love Russell and am devastated he won't be on Radio 2. And we lose the delectable Matt Morgan from the air.
It's a total over reaction by a public who dislike Ross and Brand's humour and resent how much they are paid.
Put this much effort into worthwhile causes we can really start to make a difference.
Posted by: Liz THomas | 30/10/2008 at 12:51 PM
Yes, yes, and yes, the sooner the better!!
Posted by: Heddi Hazledine | 30/10/2008 at 06:43 PM
The thing of it is that Jonathan Ross is simply not funny. Loathsomely vulgar yes, but funny no. His material stinks, he swallows his words and has no sense of comic timing. He is to comedy what Alastair Darling is to the soundness of the British Economy.
Posted by: daniel | 31/10/2008 at 02:01 PM
Radio 2 has lost 2million listners.
Russell Brand has lost a show he loved doing.
The BBC has lost a popular and modern talent.
Fans have lost the improvised and relaxed fun of the show.
Should they have been suspended?
The BBC is being manipulated into a censored, Daily Mail-esque disaster.
So who can be sure in the long run if this is the right decision, it definatly stretches the situation further than it needs to go.
No one has benefited from this.
Posted by: Freya S | 01/11/2008 at 04:49 AM