Guest alex Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 Bloke in the office reckons it was left on the ansaphone then Brand rang the bird and she deleted it off there. Or something. He says he's a bit sketchy about the details though and says in was in the Sun We're through the looking glass here people. Quality film btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 Bloke in the office reckons it was left on the ansaphone then Brand rang the bird and she deleted it off there. Or something. He says he's a bit sketchy about the details though and says in was in the Sun We're through the looking glass here people. "I want you all to go to your windows and shout...I'm angry and I'm not going to take it anymore..!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 It does change things somewhat imo. It's shit when the truth gets in the way of a good story though. So basically they didn't actually do it, he did sleep with her and......... all comedy is now outlawed in the UK? (no wonder Brown was against it, anti-terrorism laws to be used against Rory Bremner by the end of the week ) Does that sum it up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 It does change things somewhat imo. It's shit when the truth gets in the way of a good story though. So basically they didn't actually do it, he did sleep with her and......... all comedy is now outlawed in the UK? (no wonder Brown was against it, anti-terrorism laws to be used against Rory Bremner by the end of the week ) Does that sum it up? R.I.P. English comedy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted October 31, 2008 Author Share Posted October 31, 2008 Bloke in the office reckons it was left on the ansaphone then Brand rang the bird and she deleted it off there. Or something. He says he's a bit sketchy about the details though and says in was in the Sun We're through the looking glass here people. "I want you all to go to your windows and shout...I'm angry and I'm not going to take it anymore..!!" Class. "I can handle big news and little news. And if there's no news, I'll go out and bite a dog." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26345 Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 It could just be that Sachs didn't pick up his voicemails, most people I know of that age can barely operate a phone never mind the voicemail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 It could just be that Sachs didn't pick up his voicemails, most people I know of that age can barely operate a phone never mind the voicemail. That's how I see it (possibly anyway). The Beeb doesn't make it clear really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 It does change things somewhat imo. It's shit when the truth gets in the way of a good story though. So basically they didn't actually do it, he did sleep with her and......... all comedy is now outlawed in the UK? (no wonder Brown was against it, anti-terrorism laws to be used against Rory Bremner by the end of the week ) Does that sum it up? R.I.P. English comedy. That's the thing, I don't particularly like Brand (his radio 2 show can be funny though), or Ross either (although again he's ok at times). But I think this whole episode has much more to do with comedy bigotry than anything they said or did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 (edited) Sort of following on from what I said as well about the truth and a good story - the story has been massive ( at that in itself) but some of the details about what has happened are a bit vague even baring that in mind. There's no reason why they should be other than it wouldn't have created as much publicity. I would RIP say British journalism but that would hardly be a revelation, would it? Is it right there have now been over 100,000 complaints as well? I'm hoping I misheard that to be honest. Edited October 31, 2008 by alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26345 Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 It does change things somewhat imo. It's shit when the truth gets in the way of a good story though. So basically they didn't actually do it, he did sleep with her and......... all comedy is now outlawed in the UK? (no wonder Brown was against it, anti-terrorism laws to be used against Rory Bremner by the end of the week ) Does that sum it up? R.I.P. English comedy. That's the thing, I don't particularly like Brand (his radio 2 show can be funny though), or Ross either (although again he's ok at times). But I think this whole episode has much more to do with comedy bigotry than anything they said or did. Que? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 It does change things somewhat imo. It's shit when the truth gets in the way of a good story though. So basically they didn't actually do it, he did sleep with her and......... all comedy is now outlawed in the UK? (no wonder Brown was against it, anti-terrorism laws to be used against Rory Bremner by the end of the week ) Does that sum it up? R.I.P. English comedy. That's the thing, I don't particularly like Brand (his radio 2 show can be funny though), or Ross either (although again he's ok at times). But I think this whole episode has much more to do with comedy bigotry than anything they said or did. Que? Something akin to internet bullying no doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26345 Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 'Heroes and villains'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 3978 Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 Ins and outs of the actual incident aside, I think a lot of people are using this as an excuse to get at people they don't like and especially in Ross's case this is driven by his salary. I wouldn't be suprised if he gets his agent to phone ITV/Sky and try and get out of his BBC deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 More to do with a load of Daily Mail readers being told what to think that anything else iyam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 Ins and outs of the actual incident aside, I think a lot of people are using this as an excuse to get at people they don't like and especially in Ross's case this is driven by his salary. I wouldn't be suprised if he gets his agent to phone ITV/Sky and try and get out of his BBC deal. Aye, I said a similar thing earlier. I love owt like this in a way though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26345 Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 Ins and outs of the actual incident aside, I think a lot of people are using this as an excuse to get at people they don't like and especially in Ross's case this is driven by his salary. I wouldn't be suprised if he gets his agent to phone ITV/Sky and try and get out of his BBC deal. I couldn't see him getting a similar deal on a commercial station at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted October 31, 2008 Author Share Posted October 31, 2008 Ins and outs of the actual incident aside, I think a lot of people are using this as an excuse to get at people they don't like and especially in Ross's case this is driven by his salary. I wouldn't be suprised if he gets his agent to phone ITV/Sky and try and get out of his BBC deal. Thing is, as much as I agree "people are using this as an excuse to get at people they don't like " I don't think it's actually anything to do with Ross or Brand, but the owners of the daily mail who have a host of interests in commercial television (Associated Newspapers Ltd own Teletext used only by ITV, Channel 4 and Five) using it to hurt the BBC. "Is this what the lisence fee is for" propoganda to have their budget cut or dropped altogether. Shameless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 It does change things somewhat imo. It's shit when the truth gets in the way of a good story though. So basically they didn't actually do it, he did sleep with her and......... all comedy is now outlawed in the UK? (no wonder Brown was against it, anti-terrorism laws to be used against Rory Bremner by the end of the week ) Does that sum it up? R.I.P. English comedy. That's the thing, I don't particularly like Brand (his radio 2 show can be funny though), or Ross either (although again he's ok at times). But I think this whole episode has much more to do with comedy bigotry than anything they said or did. Que? People dislike Ross and Brand for who/what they are/what they do and that's why they complain and are "outraged", nothing to with what they have actually done (other than an opportunity to attack). Similar to trying to get a book banned because it's saying something you don't like, or that Jerry Springer play rubbish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 Ins and outs of the actual incident aside, I think a lot of people are using this as an excuse to get at people they don't like and especially in Ross's case this is driven by his salary. I wouldn't be suprised if he gets his agent to phone ITV/Sky and try and get out of his BBC deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 Ins and outs of the actual incident aside, I think a lot of people are using this as an excuse to get at people they don't like and especially in Ross's case this is driven by his salary. I wouldn't be suprised if he gets his agent to phone ITV/Sky and try and get out of his BBC deal. Thing is, as much as I agree "people are using this as an excuse to get at people they don't like " I don't think it's actually anything to do with Ross or Brand, but the owners of the daily mail who have a host of interests in commercial television (Associated Newspapers Ltd own Teletext used only by ITV, Channel 4 and Five) using it to hurt the BBC. "Is this what the lisence fee is for" propoganda to have their budget cut or dropped altogether. Shameless. That too, actually if you look at the later stages of the story it was/is clearly being used to beat up the BBC, although initially it snowballed on the back of Brand/Ross hate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 It does change things somewhat imo. It's shit when the truth gets in the way of a good story though. So basically they didn't actually do it, he did sleep with her and......... all comedy is now outlawed in the UK? (no wonder Brown was against it, anti-terrorism laws to be used against Rory Bremner by the end of the week ) Does that sum it up? R.I.P. English comedy. That's the thing, I don't particularly like Brand (his radio 2 show can be funny though), or Ross either (although again he's ok at times). But I think this whole episode has much more to do with comedy bigotry than anything they said or did. Que? Something akin to internet bullying no doubt. You can't even get that right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 Christ! I didn't even 'read' the developments as a take down of the BBC budget. I'm slipping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 I think HF might be slightly overplaying that if their interests don't extend beyond teletext. I wasn't sure it still existed The Mail definitely likes to have a pop at what it perceives as liberal/left-wing parts of the establishment as it lets them do there 'this is why Britain is going to the dogs' routine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ketsbaia 0 Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 I think HF might be slightly overplaying that if their interests don't extend beyond teletext. I wasn't sure it still existed The Mail definitely likes to have a pop at what it perceives as liberal/left-wing parts of the establishment as it lets them do there 'this is why Britain is going to the dogs' routine. They're really going to town now... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10...ting-Queen.html Daily Mail readers are wankers to a man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 I think HF might be slightly overplaying that if their interests don't extend beyond teletext. I wasn't sure it still existed The Mail definitely likes to have a pop at what it perceives as liberal/left-wing parts of the establishment as it lets them do there 'this is why Britain is going to the dogs' routine. They're really going to town now... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10...ting-Queen.html Daily Mail readers are wankers to a man It's like some kind of alternate universe in there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now