Russell brand Show 18/10/2008

opa01_2000

I watched the rerun of what was said and it really reminded me of a group of 17 year olds sitting in a pub, having a few beers and getting braver and more audacious as they built each other up. The only difference is that the 17 year olds are sometimes funny.

Just goes to show what Brand and Ross are like when they don't have the script writers to give them something to say.

opa01_2000

Meant to say also - hilarious article from Kevin Myarse in Indie on Friday where he complained about Brand and Ross being the unchecked "Alpha Males". Wouldn't be the first people to come to my mind when "Alpha Males" are mentioned - bit effeminate if you ask me, maybe that's part of their problem...

The Muppet

GiftGrub100 wrote: »

This whole event is just out of control, what will happen when Clarkson insults some Tree Hugger

Or Truck Drivers? It will be very interesting to see how the BEEB handles this latest incident. I think the Andrews Sachs phonecall was in very bad taste and should never have been airer but the Beeb must be careful not to over react to Clarksons comment which is totally different to the Brand/Ross incident.

FlutterinBantam

'Bout time all these overpaid liggers were held to account for their sayings on radio.

They get paid huge money and get access to the state broadcasting system and then peddle their warped crap at OUR expense.:eek:

Some responsibility comes with this and if they abuse it they should be suitably infracted.

Liam Byrne

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

They get paid huge money and get access to the state broadcasting system and then peddle their warped crap at OUR expense.:eek:

Some responsibility comes with this and if they abuse it they should be suitably infracted.

You're in a different state to me, then FB.

tbh

if you're talking about the fact that the license fee doesn't go to radio, fair enough. But remember, the studios etc were all paid for out of either taxpayers money, license fees or profits facilitated by the payment of the license fee. probably.

Liam Byrne

tbh wrote: »

if you're talking about the fact that the license fee doesn't go to radio, fair enough. But remember, the studios etc were all paid for out of either taxpayers money, license fees or profits facilitated by the payment of the license fee. probably.

No....I'm talking about the fact that our licence fee doesn't fund BBC Radio 2....!!!

tbh

Liam Byrne wrote: »

No....I'm talking about the fact that our licence fee doesn't fund BBC Radio 2....!!!

ah yes, sorry, self-ban.

The Muppet

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

'Bout time all these overpaid liggers were held to account for their sayings on radio.

They get paid huge money and get access to the state broadcasting system and then peddle their warped crap at OUR expense.:eek:

Some responsibility comes with this and if they abuse it they should be suitably infracted.

Did Clarkson abuse his position? I don't believe he did. What he said may not be everybodys idea of humour but what gives those offended the right to determine what is and what isn't funny and should their liberalism/lack of a sense of humour be forced on the rest of society who BTW also pay the licence fee and taxes that fund state broadcasters.

Top Gear attracts a huge audience and the presentation style of the three presenter is a major factor in its popularity.

FlutterinBantam

Liam Byrne wrote: »

No....I'm talking about the fact that our licence fee doesn't fund BBC Radio 2....!!!

I'm using a machro example, putting myself in the boots of the feepayer wherever he/she is located.

FlutterinBantam

The Muppet wrote: »

Did Clarkson abuse his position? I don't believe he did. What he said may not be everybodys idea of humour but what gives those offended the right to determine what is and what isn't funny and should their liberalism/lack of a sense of humour be forced on the rest of society who BTW also pay the licence fee and taxes that fund state broadcasters.

Top Gear attracts a huge audience and the presentation style of the three presenter is a major factor in its popularity.

That may well be so, but if I contribute to something I most certainly think I have the right to proffer my opinion on how I feel it should be run.

One persons sense of humour is another persons abuse and insult.

If these guys want to peddle their brand of "humour" to the nation, then go and set up a commercial outfit.

Don't ride on my back pilgrim.

The Muppet

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

That may well be so, but if I contribute to something I most certainly think I have the right to proffer my opinion on how I feel it should be run.

One persons sense of humour is another persons abuse and insult.

If these guys want to peddle their brand of "humour" to the nation, then go and set up a commercial outfit.

Don't ride on my back pilgrim.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, what you are not entitled to do is force your opionion on those of us that do not share that opinion. You appear to think that your opinion should take precedence over others.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I'm using a machro example, putting myself in the boots of the feepayer wherever he/she is located.

What makes you think that your opinions represent those of the fee payers as a whole?

raven136

are the complaints not in the minority.The rest of the audience of Top gear and russell brand didnt complain,who stands up for them.

After the original show,2 people complained,out of an audience of 380,000.Are the rest of the audience not also fee payers

Standard Toaster

Russell Brand set to land £5m role as Jack Sparrow's brother in next Pirates Of The Caribbean

Link

Yes, it's the DailyMail but I say this is probably the best thing to happen to him. Once the US hears he's banned on BBC they'll lap that up.