Should they face disciplinary action and/or prosecution?
what do you think?

Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross could face prosecution after obscene on air phone calls to Fawlty Towers actor, 78 | Mail Online

__________________
Join General Chat for free!

I've read the article in Mail on Sunday paper edition and it makes me sick. I don't have a great deal of time for either Ross or his mate but making phone calls to someone who is, on the face of it, very non- assuming and quiet, is beyond belief. I think the two of them should be kicked off the box and the idiot BBC person who authorised the programme to go out. There is just too much obscene language on the box these days, no wonder the kids use it like there is no tomorrow. Ross is one of the highest paid "entertainers" (said with tongue in cheek) on TV and seems to think he is just one step down from God. He regularly insults his so called guests, which is fine if they put themselves up as a victim, but making phone calls to someone who hasn't offered to be insulted and sworn at needs some strong action. I hope the pair of them get the sack.

The beeb have sacked people for less

__________________
Join General Chat for free!

It sounds like they have indeed over stepped the mark. I'm all for risque content when the audience and subject is right, at live shows or post watershed etc etc. However, the subject matter of this prank just isn't funny or new. Brand's show has had similar "slept with your (insert relation of choice)" lines before now.

It sounds like they both got carried away. A genuine old fashioned apology might be all that's needed.

I don't have a problem with swearing or risque humour, but not when it hurts innocent people. I read that article and felt terrible for Andrew Sachs and his family. I wonder what their "punishment" will be. Too often it turns out that celebrities are above the law.

__________________

Have faith...post and they shall reply...

Join General Chat for free!

I find it unusual that there is such emphesis upon what the BBC are going to do about this.

The BBC is not a law-enforcement agency - and I think it is unreasonable to expect the BBC to act in a manner which they might consider conflicts with their business interests.

These two, regardless of this incident, are popular entertainers - and I assume that the BBC would continue to regard them as assets rather than liabilities.

I feel that the thrust of the debate ought to be far more focussed upon the criminal prosecution of this pair.

There is indeed, as descibed, such an offence upon the statute book.

There is indeed, as described, provision for a custodial sentence.

There is, SURELY, no lack of evidence to impede a successful prosecution.

There appears to me to be NO REASON why a custodial sentence ought not be imposed in this case.

The ball is not in the BBC's court. I say let the BBC employ whom they will, and stand-or-fall upon the basis of their decision-making.

It is for the Police and Crown Prosecution Service to fulfill their remit. I hope they will. Six-months-worth of growing-up in a harsh environment would not go amiss for either of these characters, both of whom conduct themselves in the manner more befitting of an eleven-year-old child.

Two points here

Normally their actions could be considered as bringing their employer into disrepute which indeed would be a disciplinary offense under most Contracts of Employment however the article says that the broadcast was cleared by BBC Executives which rather lets them off the hook. Not so the Executives in question though in my opinion.

Archangel is correct the BBC are not there to deal with nuisance or malicious callers I assume the calls were made from BBC telephone lines though so One of the actions which could be taken by the Police is the refusal of telecommunication services to the BBC. Oh well there goes Children in Need.

__________________
Pone ubi sol non lucet!

I largely agree with you Sooty.

The thrust of my stance is that there is a statutory offence [compressing detail for the sake of brevity] of making malicious phone-calls.

Whilst there is no such statutory offence of broadcasting the commission of such an offence.

I am not intimately acquainted with the BBC's code of conduct as it impacts upon employees, nor with the Broadcasting Standards Agency's code of conduct as it might be construed as impacting upon the BBC.

Nevertheless, a criminal offence is a criminal offence. The laws of the land ought to apply to Ross and Brand, as fully as they do to the man on the Clapham omnibus.

QANGO's imposing (failing to impose, or selectively imposing) their own rules is somewhat beyond the scope of my remit.

However, implemention of the laws of the land is thoroughly within my remit; and, I think, ought to be the business of everybody.

Knowing the BBC, the full might of disciplinary action will be brought to bear and the new girl employed last week to make the tea will be dismissed in a fanfare of publicity.

__________________
Pone ubi sol non lucet!

both Ross and Brand are so consumed by their self-importance that they probably believe that what they did was humourous and therefore harmless-no it was not and they should be forced to give a proper apology and then given the sack and the next time you see them will be when they sign on at Jobcentre Plus-but this will not happen because then the BBC will lose two of it's biggest draws-and this tells you all you need to know about how the BBC operates these days

ironically, i find that Ross is quite amusing on his own radio show but on television he comes across as an embarrassment

dave

__________________
broadsword calling danny boy