- Joined
- 2 Oct 2006
- Messages
- 6,654
- Reaction score
- 290
- Country
Should Brand and Woss be sacked?
- Thread starter joe-90
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Dont forget to watch the new show tomorrow,(Friday night with jonathons boss).
Johnathan Dross is a smug c**t.
This is history repeating itself; we got fed up of him before and he dissapeared for a few years.
People want to get rid of him because of his wages, this thing is just an excuse.
The BBC should have a salary cap of £1 million or less.
The joke was funny for about half a series, but I think its about time his shows were dropped.
Big stars need to come on telly to promote their films, so it wouldn't make any difference.
This is history repeating itself; we got fed up of him before and he dissapeared for a few years.
People want to get rid of him because of his wages, this thing is just an excuse.
The BBC should have a salary cap of £1 million or less.
The joke was funny for about half a series, but I think its about time his shows were dropped.
Big stars need to come on telly to promote their films, so it wouldn't make any difference.
Sponsored Links
To be quite honest i'm saddened that this thing has received so much press coverage this week - talk about mountains and molehills. They both apologised to Andrew Sachs and he accpeted their apologies - shouldn't that be end of story??? And quite frankly for this to be mentioned in the house of commons on three seperate occassions this week is absurd. OK if there wasn't much going on in the world maybe but surley Brown, Cameron and co have things infinately more important to debate than this??
I presonally find Ross funny and some of Russ's stuff too (although some i just find a bit too daft to be funny) but i'm not sure that both of them together are worth £4m+ of licence payers money let-alone Ross on his own? No wonder there is some many rubbish programmes on the BBC these days because they're wasting huge amounts of their budget on Johnathan Ross's salary? I'm quite glad i've had a DIY loft conversion to keep me away from the TV for much of this year!!! I'm now fearful of what trash the BBC will replace Ross' show with for the next three months.....maybe Andrew Sachs being hit repeatedly around the head by John Cleese - a real, acceptable form of humour?
Definately - they shouldn't have done it.
Definately - it should have been edited out.
Definately - it has been blown out of all proportion.
Definately - politicians should concentrate on trying to pull the country out of the recession it is heading towards rather than worrying about two rather insignificant radio presenters actions.
I presonally find Ross funny and some of Russ's stuff too (although some i just find a bit too daft to be funny) but i'm not sure that both of them together are worth £4m+ of licence payers money let-alone Ross on his own? No wonder there is some many rubbish programmes on the BBC these days because they're wasting huge amounts of their budget on Johnathan Ross's salary? I'm quite glad i've had a DIY loft conversion to keep me away from the TV for much of this year!!! I'm now fearful of what trash the BBC will replace Ross' show with for the next three months.....maybe Andrew Sachs being hit repeatedly around the head by John Cleese - a real, acceptable form of humour?
Definately - they shouldn't have done it.
Definately - it should have been edited out.
Definately - it has been blown out of all proportion.
Definately - politicians should concentrate on trying to pull the country out of the recession it is heading towards rather than worrying about two rather insignificant radio presenters actions.
This has not been blown out of proportion.
Radio is now global and with the internet and listen again you are not confined to live shows.
What they did was illegal and done while the taxpayer (through the BBC) was paying them.
They should both go, permanantly. As should those who agreed it should be transmitted.
In addition Ross is stupid and boring and his show is the one on Radio 2 that I avoid like the plague. Vine at lunchtime I can just about tolerate but Ross - no way.
As for Brown complaining - surely he should have made the Home and Culture Secretaries do something rather than give out his soundbite for the press.
Radio is now global and with the internet and listen again you are not confined to live shows.
What they did was illegal and done while the taxpayer (through the BBC) was paying them.
They should both go, permanantly. As should those who agreed it should be transmitted.
In addition Ross is stupid and boring and his show is the one on Radio 2 that I avoid like the plague. Vine at lunchtime I can just about tolerate but Ross - no way.
As for Brown complaining - surely he should have made the Home and Culture Secretaries do something rather than give out his soundbite for the press.
B
billy bob
It has been blown out of proportion, it is a trivial matter in the real scheme of things, it has had far to much news coverage and MP's dicussing the matter when the UK is in meltdown is ridiculous.
H
holmslaw
Perhaps only 2 people complained at first because only 2 where listening.
And someone who believed in the old adage of "there's no such thing as bad publicity" put the show out in an attempt to attract more morons.
And someone who believed in the old adage of "there's no such thing as bad publicity" put the show out in an attempt to attract more morons.
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2005
- Messages
- 31,281
- Reaction score
- 1,997
- Country
6 million a year for a complete prat is hardly blown out of proportion. Cap the BBC presenters at £100k.
B
billy bob
I said nothing of his salary, just the incident
there is obviously a large divide in who likes or dislikes these two, a bit like Marmite 
BUT, to discuss something like this in the House of Commons, what a farce ! Lets get it straight. A pre-recorded programme has the option of being EDITED. Those in charge of the programme chose not to edit it as much as they should have. So the blame lays on the shoulder of said producer. IF Andrew Sachs made the public aware of the insult to his dignity himself, then fair enough. But he didn't. He only answered questions put to him by an over excited press, out for Ross' Blood. The press has got the result they wanted.
I don't think they are all that bad, sometimes funny. What they did was wrong, but if every person who felt affronted went running to the press, police, etc. over every little thing, then there are some sad, spineless people out there.
BUT, to discuss something like this in the House of Commons, what a farce ! Lets get it straight. A pre-recorded programme has the option of being EDITED. Those in charge of the programme chose not to edit it as much as they should have. So the blame lays on the shoulder of said producer. IF Andrew Sachs made the public aware of the insult to his dignity himself, then fair enough. But he didn't. He only answered questions put to him by an over excited press, out for Ross' Blood. The press has got the result they wanted.
I don't think they are all that bad, sometimes funny. What they did was wrong, but if every person who felt affronted went running to the press, police, etc. over every little thing, then there are some sad, spineless people out there.
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
