• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Ross suspended for three months

J

jujuman13

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Messages
4,075
Reaction score
579
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
This man has built his entire career on insulting people.
A THREE Month suspension is hardly more than a slap on the wrist.
Ok, so he stands to lose about One Million UK Pounds.
Far better were the BBC to fire him.
At least the Lady who was in charge of the Show has had the decency to resign.
Ross has never known what the word Decency means, certainly he has never practiced being decent in his entire life.
Link for those who might wish to read the story:
BBC NEWS | Entertainment | Ross suspended for three months
 
Posted this story here earlier this week.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe/38961-brand-ross-furore-bbc.html

Can't say I agree with you - the whole thing is a storm in a teacup. If you know what Ross and Brand's humour is like then turn over or do something else.

As it is, Brand will simply work for Channel 4 or some other station willing to put out cutting edge humour and Ross (who was never cutting edge) may follow suit. It's censorship and it's wrong.
 
A known person? In which country? Which question?

.

A known person? In which of the 51 European countries? Which question?

.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Posted this story here earlier this week.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe/38961-brand-ross-furore-bbc.html

Can't say I agree with you - the whole thing is a storm in a teacup. If you know what Ross and Brand's humour is like then turn over or do something else.

As it is, Brand will simply work for Channel 4 or some other station willing to put out cutting edge humour and Ross (who was never cutting edge) may follow suit. It's censorship and it's wrong.
Click to expand...

How is phoning someones 78yr old grandad and leaving lurid message about his granddaughter cutting edge? The term "pushing the boundaries" has been banded around this week, for me thats a get out clause for entertainers to get away with what they like. This kind of humour is all about instant gratification and shock factor and nothing about actual ability.
The Jonathan Ross TV show is all about him and his constant sexual innuendo's are tiresome and boring to say the least. He hasn't the ability to clean Parkinson's shoes.

cheers Paul.
 
I would be happier with him being removed completley from BBC.
 
gunner said:
-- This kind of humour is all about instant gratification and shock factor and nothing about actual ability.
The Jonathan Ross TV show is all about him and his constant sexual innuendo's are tiresome and boring to say the least.
Click to expand...

Hi Paul, I'm not here to defend Ross or Brand, if you read my post here -

http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057788214-post1.html

I say to begin with that their humour is not to my taste however the real point is people know what their humour is like. You describe it yourself very accurately - if you don't like sexual innuendo then don't watch. Simple as that really. Personally I don't watch Ross or Brand and Ross's "film" series isn't a patch on Barry Norman's series but I think that's my age showing.

gunner said:
-- He hasn't the ability to clean Parkinson's shoes --
Click to expand...

Agreed. But then Parkinson's style is not the same as Ross's and Ross appeals to a different (ad younger) audience from Parky's (older audience).
 
Infinite Chaos wrote
(I say to begin with that their humour is not to my taste)

Then why watch them?

quote
(however the real point is people know what their humour is like.)

No Sir, that is not the real point.
The real point is that no public performer has the right to phone any member of the Public and cast aspersions on the character of that persons relative, to then use that clip as part of a sexually orientated show.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Hi Paul, I'm not here to defend Ross or Brand, if you read my post here -

http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057788214-post1.html

I say to begin with that their humour is not to my taste however the real point is people know what their humour is like. You describe it yourself very accurately - if you don't like sexual innuendo then don't watch. Simple as that really. Personally I don't watch Ross or Brand and Ross's "film" series isn't a patch on Barry Norman's series but I think that's my age showing.



Agreed. But then Parkinson's style is not the same as Ross's and Ross appeals to a different (ad younger) audience from Parky's (older audience).
Click to expand...

I see where your coming from now:cool:
I am of a very similar opinion i very rarely listen to or watch either. And although i used Parky as an example i don't watch him very often :rofl
but the point i was trying to get across is i feel there has to be broadcasting boundaries, otherwise they get free license to do as they please, and you'll probably agree vulgarity of this nature is severely lacking in talent.

Paul.
 
jujuman13 said:
--No Sir, that is not the real point.
The real point is that no public performer has the right to phone any member of the Public and cast aspersions on the character of that persons relative, to then use that clip as part of a sexually orientated show.
Click to expand...

I will guess you don't like "Fonejacker" or similar shows then?

Funny how nobody complains about a show on Channel 4 doing the same thing almost weekly. Before you say well BBC is public funded - so is Channel 4.
 
gunner said:
-- you'll probably agree vulgarity of this nature is severely lacking in talent --
Click to expand...

Agreed, but nowadays "talent" is something you don't actually need to become a major performer / singer / entertainer. And then with the huge growth of TV stations we're going to see more and more talentless people filling the airwaves and the quality stuff becoming harder and harder to find.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom