Reader views (56)

 Add your view

i thought it was actually quite funny, dont understand what the fuss is all about, miss the friday night show he did too was always funny

- David, uk, 20/11/2008 21:24
Report abuse

the most importent thing is what was left recorded on the awnser machine.not wether he ask someone toedit out the meterial .he is a big child

- Aziz Kazim, london, 13/11/2008 15:59
Report abuse

This only strengthens the case for Ross to be returned to the BBC. He apologised for it and I just wish the BBC would get over it too and see sense. Friday evenings and Saturday mornings were a lot more fun with Ross on TV and radio. Bring him back.

- Paul Fricker, United Kingdom, 12/11/2008 23:02
Report abuse

"Interesting that in these 51 "views" published here, only 2 are saying they miss Jonathan Ross and want him back on TV."

Bring them back, just because some people are threatened by their charisma doesn't mean we all have to do without. Its simple, don't like it, don't listen and/or watch. It smacks of huge arrogance to be offended on somebody else's behalf

- Tim, Cambridge, 12/11/2008 18:27
Report abuse

Interesting that in these 51 "views" published here, only 2 are saying they miss Jonathan Ross and want him back on TV. I think Ross's time as a chat show host on TV and radio is long past and hopefully this will be a curtain call for him, as the format of both his shows is very "tired". All he does is flatter every guest profusely and his behaviour with female guests has put me off watching him altogether a long time ago. I don't mind a bit of sauciness but he is positively lewd with most females to the point where you can see they are uncomfortable. Bring on a new successor..!

- Stella, London, UK, 12/11/2008 11:37
Report abuse

I don't care much for Russell Brand but Jonathan ROss is a kind, decent guy who is worth every penny. He is the best thing the BBC have and on the hand I don't want him to lose his show (so don't sue) but on the other, he didn't deserve all this (do sue). A tough decision but clearly the press are out to get him! The grand daughter and Andrew Sachs himself state clearly that this has become too overblown. 2 complaints on the night of broadcasting. So everyone else doesn't listen to Brand none the less, so what business of yours is it what they do?!?! There are far more important things going on at the minute so get a life and stop complaining!!!!!

- Matthew Knightley, Dereham, 12/11/2008 00:51
Report abuse

I hope he sues. Then his card will be well and truly marked and hopefully he will never broadcast again the UK.

- Martin Davies, Guildford, 11/11/2008 13:36
Report abuse

Do all of you who are harping on about his high pay think it would have been OK to make obscene calls to the old dear if he'd been on a low salary?

- M Salafrio, St John's Wood, 11/11/2008 11:53
Report abuse

Funny that Ross is mentioning this only NOW!

- Simon Reewald, London, England, 11/11/2008 11:08
Report abuse

when you earn the sort of millions a year Ross earns does that gives you the right to slag off whoever he wants and say whatever he likes with no regard for their feelings? But the BBC earn more so that must give them the right to fire him for daring to sue them. I mean if this is about money, may the best beast win...

- Maria, london, 11/11/2008 11:01
Report abuse

Ross should sue, and he should win.
He can then give the money to charity.

- John, London, 11/11/2008 09:09
Report abuse

This new info smells like a PR tactic to defend Jonathon Ross' position without him saying something in public Wossy has been remarkably silent to date but this is possibly on legal advice , particularly if he wants to sue. Brand has apologised, fair enough, but he is in a strongercareer position. Ross could find his career down the toilet as he is dependent on the TV and the UK. I find this whole thing fascinating as it is a complete lesson on how to screw up PR. Ross needs to sack his PR co as they are mismanaging his position. As for the BBC, please pay me £100K a year and I will screw up just as well but probably not better. If Ross et al had acted promptly, this would have died a death. As for the rest of outraged little england , the only person that really matters is Andrew Sachs' and his family's feelings. They should get the apology they want. The rest of us can choose to listen to Ross or Brand and enjoy their humour or if we find it offensive, change channels

- Elle, london, 10/11/2008 22:34
Report abuse

I heard the original broadcast. And I heard Jonathan say "don't worry, they'll edit this out".

Can't people just leave him alone, he said a swearword on an answerphone. How many of us have done that? How many of us have said something then thought "oops"? We don't get burnt at the steak though do we?

Jonathan is a very funny and intelligent presenter and I miss hearing his voice. The BBC didn't protect his integrity but I doubt that he would sue them. Just not his style - IMHO.

- Jen Johnson, Leicester, UK, 10/11/2008 22:13
Report abuse

eh "Georgina wotserface" hehe don't u luv bitchiness miaow:-)
BBC will lose the libel that Wossy may pursue.
They should have sacked the pair of them. It was the right thing to do. By suspending Ross they have admitted culpable liability thereby claiming responsible oversight.
The BBC lacks decisive and created leadership. The BBC is a doctrine to bureaucracy.
We clearly all agree that there implies an abyss of cultural appreciation to the breadth of comedy in our demographic.
I canceled my TV services in September citing the BBC and Rossy for the reason. (amongst others too). I have no TV.
Ross should sue the BBC. And return after suspension. It's in his contract. If he can't come back, sue them again. I would.
Then we may finally see a clear out of all the empiristic dead wood throughout the Corp.

They made a mistake. We all make mistakes. This one has been left to fester and the BBC is responsible. The public will suffer as a result.

Nor should the culprits be pilloried. Whats done is done. All those responsible have clearly learnt a hard lesson by their actions. So have we. Much more, sadly, about ourselves than those involved I fear.

They are eminently employable and should continue in chosen professions.

I thank all those at the centre of this storm and you, good readers for this feisty debate.

"wotsinyerface" "isyerface" it appears:-)

(oh yeh, if wossy wins I could sue the lot of em, what do u think mi chances')

- Tuskerd, Huggin Tree, 10/11/2008 21:44
Report abuse

Please tell me how you edit out a "LIVE" phone call being taped for air/time later?.
The matter was on the answer machine of Mr Sachs at the time of recording.
Sorry J.R. your sunk ...... Idiot, and I liked you to until this?.

- John L., Scarborough N.YKS. U.K., 10/11/2008 21:33
Report abuse

I hope he does sue, the calls were made for a pre-arranged interview with Andrew Sachs. If Ross said to the BBC not to publish it then what the hell were the editorial department doing? TWO complaints tho to main News, just stupid. He shouldn't have been suspended.

- Mark, London, 10/11/2008 21:08
Report abuse

Not all the license paying public either need or want an apology! As far as some of us are concerned they HAVE apologised. Peoples lives have been destroyed because a pre-recorded show was aired when it should not have been ( and even then only received 2 complaints!) and certain newspapers saw this as an opportunity to crucify someone who just happens to earn a lot more money than them ! shame on them

- Amanda, Buckinghamshire uk, 10/11/2008 20:55
Report abuse

British people are such sickening gutless hypocrites

The BBC (and other channels) regulary shows nude people, gay perverts..produces/shows films, plays etc,..containing such like & vile language,.threats to kill,..details on how to commit murder,..burgalry etc etc

the BBC shows sicko pictures of torture in WW2,.of concentration camps to name a few

how dare they slag oof Ross and Brand,..its a flaming scandal

- A Brown, london uk, 10/11/2008 20:45
Report abuse

The 40,000 people who complained only did so after the 'story' was 'exposed' by the Daily Mail (except for the 2/3 who complained originally).
There are over 54,000 people in a popular social networking site group supporting both Ross & Brand.
Who dictates what/who we can or can't watch - Daily Mail readers or the BBC?
If viewers/listeners to the BBC find some content offensive then they've every right to tune it/turn over to something else.

- Loz, Huddersfield, UK, 10/11/2008 20:06
Report abuse

Most of us making a call like that whilst at work would be sacked. And given that it was to a BBC star the Beeb would probably have been at the forefront of those calling for someone to be punished. Mark Thompson runs an organisation that draws a fine line between pushing the boundaries of how cruel he can make some of his programmes in being "edgy" and in censoring anything that could upset minorities such as Muslims

- Dave, London, 10/11/2008 18:14
Report abuse

sounds like he realizes his & his mates careers are going down the tube comedy has moved on, blame everyone but themselves

- John, medway, 10/11/2008 18:04
Report abuse

Kitty H,

why on earth do you think Georgina deserves any comeuppance?

get a grip.

- Scott, London, 10/11/2008 17:55
Report abuse

It's taken Ross long enough to come up with this little gem of information, has he just thought it up!

- Vince London, West London, 10/11/2008 17:37
Report abuse

Ross shouldn't have made those obscene remarks about Georgina anyway - whether he later regretted it, or not. face the music, Wossi. You got caught out big-time.

- Keith Price, Luton, England, 10/11/2008 16:51
Report abuse

Dear God,I thought Mr Obama was going to save us all from any more Dross & Bland. Get a life media men and women and move on from this Rubbish

- Selwyn Channon, Epsom, 10/11/2008 16:24
Report abuse

Hear, hear Sarah Bradshaw!!


Where is Goergina's comeuppance for (at least ) two people losing their jobs through her lust for fame and fortune? Not to mention odious men.

- Kittyh, London, 10/11/2008 16:04
Report abuse

Can you imagine in your wildest dreams that Ross would actually say to producers that they should check with Andrew Sachs first, no way he comes under the category of publish and be dammed.

- David A. Johnson, Ilford, Essex, 10/11/2008 15:58
Report abuse

Ross should just disappear.

- Jaberwokie3, switzerland, 10/11/2008 15:51
Report abuse

Go ahead, Jonathan, make my day.

- Dirty Harry, San Francisco, 10/11/2008 15:31
Report abuse

A friend says it's not his fault and he got roped into it? For goodness sake is Jonathan Ross a grown man or a child? He's one of the most shrewd, intelligent, experienced broadcasters around who's made a highly lucrative living making grubby, sordid comments and jokes at the expense of others. So having a producer makes him devoid of any responsibility over what comes out of his sneery mouth - please, is that for real? If you want to retain any dignity Jonathan please stop your 'friends' from commenting and go away and serve your suspension quietly.

- Whillow, London, 10/11/2008 15:27
Report abuse

Oh please for the love of God, put this to rest!

- Julie, London, 10/11/2008 15:17
Report abuse

Blame someone else, it wasn't my fault, Ross should become
an MP.

- Tracey, Guilford, UK, 10/11/2008 14:42
Report abuse

What a load of twaddle! When is Ross going to take responsibility for his own actions. Others have already bitten the bullet, and yet he, the highest paid of the lot and the instigator, is bleating on about how it is not his fault!

- Deborah, London, 10/11/2008 14:24
Report abuse

Where in this story does it say that Jonathan Ross is going to sue? What it says is he asked producers to edit the programme and then some anonymous person offering an opinion has said he *could* sue, not that he will. There is no evidence in this piece that Ross has indicated he will sue indeed the contrary is true because he cannot have been suspended without his consent.

- Al, London, UK, 10/11/2008 13:50
Report abuse

Hey Ross, how about not making obscene calls in the first place.

If Ross sues then he should be prosecuted for making the call.

- Frank, Home Counties, England, 10/11/2008 13:43
Report abuse

Any employee who calls a client or working associate and leaves offensive messages is committing gross misconduct and can be dismissed (not just suspended). As Jonanthan Ross' lawyers are undoubtedly familiar with employment law maybe they should advise him of this.

- Elizabeth, London, 10/11/2008 13:22
Report abuse

Maybe we could harness some of this vitriol and use it to complain bitterly about the closure of A&E wards, lack of life saving drugs, poor equipment for the army and closure of Post Offices. People are dying needlessly. The way of life for pensioners is being threatened by this governments actions, and the largest noises we hear are about Ross. Get things in perspective.

- Paul, Hertfordshire, 10/11/2008 12:54
Report abuse

It matters not that the smut was not edited out. What matters is that the messages were left on Mr Sachs phone. Whether the messages were edited out or not the messages would still have been heard by the grandfather. I hope Jonathan sues cos it will spell the end for him. The vitriol spewed against him for the phonecalls will seem complimentary compared to the criticisms he will face if he goes ahead with this threat

- Sue, London, 10/11/2008 12:48
Report abuse

I did not make a formal complaint about Ross and Brand's remarks left on Andrew Sachs voicemail, but I did write supporting the views of those who did complain and I am offended that I am thought to be merely a passenger on a bandwagon. I grew up knowing where I could use various words and phrases and where I could not. How on earth does the crossing of accepted social boundaries become wit? I am offended that Ross and his supporters not only find giving offense 'funny', but that they feel that Ross should be paid more per few days, for instance, than a senior teacher or similar professional can earn in a year and that he should be entitled to sue his employer for failing to protect him from his own stupid and thoroughly reprehensible behaviour. The fact that his wildly excessive remuneration comes out of the licence fee only adds to my sense of outrage. If Ross does sue the BBC, it proves, to my satisfaction at least, that he has no grasp of either public standards or ethics. If he succeeds in suing his employer, I will know that the inmates are running the asylum!

- Kiwi Expat, London, UK, 10/11/2008 12:47
Report abuse

Maybe the real moral of the story is that people (meaning Georgina wotserface) should have more self respect and not sleep with people they would be ashamed of their family finding out about.

- Sarah Bradshaw, Enfield, Middx, 10/11/2008 12:29
Report abuse

Can Mr Ross and Mr Brand really be blamed for anything? What they did is what we ask them to do, to splash about in the tertiary between irony and bad taste. They push the boundaries with our approval surely? So this time it didn’t work out, in five years time it won’t even raise an eyebrow. Don’t blame the artists, they are just doing the job they are good at. If anyone is to blame it is we, for continually wanting something more daring and dangerously funny. Shame we aren't honest enough to take the blame ourselves.

- Paulbg, Bath, UK, 10/11/2008 12:28
Report abuse

The BBC is supposed to protect talent? No danger of Ross being protected then.

He made an idiot of himself and he should be held responsible for it. Talk about pass the buck. It shouldn't have been done in the first place, won't that go through his skull?

- Andrea Perkins, Vienna, Austria, 10/11/2008 12:20
Report abuse

I've said all along that Ross and Brand could have legitimate case to sue for loss of earnings. Afterall it was a pre-recorded show and the decision lay with the producers. Like so many workplaces everywhere,the blame gets shifted. The key to this whole thing,is who is responsible and accountable. If you were doing something wrong in your day to day job and no one ever pulled you up over it. Would you not still carry on?

- Triffidqueen, Desk in London, 10/11/2008 12:14
Report abuse

He should shut up and use he's brain, he said what he said no one forced him to prove what a complete idiot he is by being so crude and offensive.

- Mike Melbourne, Bedford England, 10/11/2008 12:07
Report abuse

I agree with Mike. It would be an interesting law suit. A grown middle aged man behaving like a smutty 12 year old schoolboy, over-paid by the tax payer, sues his boss, also paid by the tax payer, for not protecting him from making a pratt of himself and offending people.

The resulting claim and all of the lawyers bills? Well of course, paid by the tax payer.

Great idea!

- Stephen Rothbart, Prague, Czech Republic, 10/11/2008 11:56
Report abuse

A couple of points.
1. The "defence" argues that only 2 or 3 people complained upon hearing the original braodcast thus invalidating the response of thousands of others. One doesn't have to be present at a crime scene to express outrage.
2. The BBC and others seem to think the problem was with broadcasting the offence rather than the offence itself.

- David, Bromley, 10/11/2008 11:46
Report abuse

Mike, you're right about the 'offence', BUT the BBC producers spoke with Andrew Sachs, suggested a proper interview and stated that the elements would be edited out.

Then, for some reason they revoked their agreement and broadcast the show 'as was'. The BBC cannot even be trusted to apologise on thier own, I think the wrongful handling lies squarely with the Beeb.

In terms of the 'offence', there is nothing 'that' offensive thre to be honest. Being someone who heard the show, all in all the events show a situation getting out of hand. From a legal perspective the 'offensive langauge' is not really a correct interpretation of the show as the foul language was not a '**** ***' for example, for this reason unless the recipient (Andrew Sachs) actually makes a call to the Met stating his outrage, then there is not really a case to be met.

Please be careful in interpreting the rule of law to this case in part, it does not match 100% what happened, although it makes good press.

Let's not forget that the majority of people complaining are bandwagon passengers, perhaps only very few listened on that fateful day.

I dread to imagine how this would have gone if Andrew Sachs 'had been' available for the interview

- Simon Jenkins, Zurich, CH, 10/11/2008 11:44
Report abuse

Why does Jonathan Ross think he should have some credits after his vile and rude abuse on the phone

He should not be suspended for twelve weeks but kicked out altogether

- Brian Challis, Southend on Sea, Essex, 10/11/2008 11:39
Report abuse

So it's taken Jonathan ... 5 (?) weeks to remember saying this?

- Marianne, SW France, 10/11/2008 11:39
Report abuse

I think the conversation they had was a tad over the top, yet i find it funny. Comedians have always made me laugh either joking about themselves or just joking about anything. It seems as if the BBC is to blame for broadcasting the show, Ross and Brand still said this but the chaos after could have been stopped by the BBC, I recall a small show called FAWLTY TOWERS where Andrew Sachs became one of the most recognised characters and he was funny! but he made all of us laugh portraying a spanish waiter and making him look a fool, this is comedy lets laugh at it, the media are making small issues into major news!

- Comedy Rules, swansea, 10/11/2008 11:26
Report abuse

I hope he does sue the BBC.

They deserve it for bowing to the 40,000 mindless sheep that have nothing better to do than complain about something they didn't even listen to.

Perhaps if these complainers spent their time writing letters for amnesty instead of this nonsense, the world would be a slightly better place. But no, forget about the rape, murder and torture, they are more outraged by a silly answerphone message...

I fear for humanity...

- Luke, London, UK, 10/11/2008 11:25
Report abuse

So all the people commenting and asking for Ross to be sacked have never been dragged into something they then regretted?

Key thing, if this story is true, is that he realised and took steps to prevent it form being aired.

The real culprits here are Band and the producers.

- Stuart, Luton, UK, 10/11/2008 11:21
Report abuse

Jonathan Ross has made a fair point, but he was genuinely offensive towards Andrew Sachs and this has reinforced what many people already think about his kind of humour. I suspect that most of the outrage however is to do with the fact that he is paid such an incredible salary to be this crude.

- Jeffrey Quinn, London, UK, 10/11/2008 11:08
Report abuse

How come it's taken this long for Ross to come out and say he instructed the producers not to air this segment? Seems like his PR people have concocted this story as part and parcel of his recovery and return to work. It's his word against the producers at the end of the day, and now that those that matter at the BBC have lost their jobs and Ross is considered to be a vital employee, are we now going to see the BBC apologising to Ross? What a complete farce. As another poster has commented - it's not the fact that it was aired, it's the fact that these arrogant losers think so highly of themselves that they don't even consider boundaries and spew out whatever rubbish comes into their shallow minds. If Ross ends up suing the BBC as has been suggested in this article, I reckon the public will revolt in far bigger numbers than the 40,000 who bothered to make a formal complaint. Doesn't he get it - that amount of people are representative of a lot more, and this kind of a response from the public is probably unprecedented. He should be eating humble pie and not looking for a way to clear his name. Not only have we all heard the calls but we've seen the video

- Terry, Guildford, Surrey, 10/11/2008 11:08
Report abuse

So the hitman was just following orders of the Crimelord and is not to blame for his actions. Get real.

- Den, London, 10/11/2008 10:24
Report abuse

Ross may be telling the truth but he's missing the point - as are many commentators.

The public annoyance with this is NOTHING TO DO with the broadcasting of his silliness: it has EVERYTHING to do with the fact of it being on a private answerphone or voicemail. It is irretrievability of the offensive comment, on a private man's phone, that makes this unacceptable. The show might or might not have been aired : but even it the whole show had been pulled, those performers still had left foul comments on a private person's personal voicemail. THAT is not acceptable.

The producer should certainly have been sacked instantly without pension : it is unquestionably true that the Beeb were woefully longwinded. But there was no undoing the basic offence, which is why why Brand was right when he chose to resign (and he knew that it was in fact Ross who made the original crude remark). The only way back for Ross, who sensibly has already done plenty of apologising, is to make a full and grovelling apology to the public when he comes back. And maybe ask Andrew Sachs to be his first guest.

- Mike, London UK, 10/11/2008 10:00
Report abuse

Add your comment