So in your own words your getting angry about something that you don't care either way about whilst taking the time to post too
BBC Issue apology over Ross/Brand 'Prank'
- Thread starter Father Ted
- Start date
So in your own words your getting angry about something that you don't care either way about whilst taking the time to post too
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2007
- Posts
- 5,488
The whole facebook thing is so sad people need to stop caring about celebrities.
Really who cares about Ross and Brand?
They don't give a flying "£$% about any of you.
They reek of narcissism so much they can't even smell their own BS broadcast out on the Radio.
No-one cares about you.
No-one. Not Governments, not newspapers, not magazines, no-one.
And so what if they're narcissic? Don't listen to their radio show or watch them on TV of you care that much?
People do need to stop reading Heat magazine and getting plastic surgery because they saw Jordan do it but you can apply the exact same logic to any serious world event. How is reading about some Tsunami somewhere any different to reading about celebrities? You're still sat there in your warm house, looking at printed text getting entertainment out of it. You're not doing anything beneficial either way.
If you're going to call Facebook sad (be my guest) then you should lump the Daily Mail and everyother tabloid & broadsheet in there with it.
In my opinion, there is nothing worse than someone whose up-to-date with the News, who pretends to care about the world and gets angry over marginal issues that don't matter to them or they can't change. They're just as useless as anyone reading about celebrities.
What, so people have to read about what you think is entertaining and newsworthy do they?
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2007
- Posts
- 5,488
So in your own words your getting angry about something that you don't care either way about whilst taking the time to post too
Wow, predictability.
I knew that post was coming, but I typed out my own post anyway. Don't start with the whole "I'm a hypocrite" thing. So tiresome and oh-so boring.
I'm entitled to an opinion. I explained that I don't care either way, as I don't care about either side of the argument concerning Ross & Brand.
I wonder how people get outraged at this sort of thing? How can you get outraged at something you haven't heard? How?
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2007
- Posts
- 5,488
I'm not outraged at all by the events, nor am I offended whatsoever or woundup at all, I'm totally calm.
For me it's simple, if anyone makes such calls (especially from work) then you have to face the consequences, I don't make or enforce the rules. They are the broadcasting code of practice, not something up for debate with an opt out.
Doing this from work, which happens to be the BBC, a company you would assume have to be seen to adhere to such regulations, is clearly wrong
Are you saying that if you were the top boss at the BBC you would now still have them both employed, no suspensions and business as usual and no co-operation with Ofcom etc ?
Last edited:
Why would the Daily Mail care about BBC journalists? You're misrepresenting information that you posted!
You are by not quoteing my whole post.
The National Union of Journalists condemned Ross, calling the comment "obscene".
My point is that people need to just deal with the fact of what's gone on.Ross and Brand don't need fan clubs to defend their innocence.
A 12 week suspension is hardly a punishment so I don't see how anyone can see this as disproportionate.
That's your perception.Mine of you is one that pedals weak post's that are nothing but personal attacks.
That's because people have conveniently ignored the fact that Brand has been sacked from Radio stations in the past and Ross has publicly ridiculed journailst's
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jul 2003
- Posts
- 30,063
- Location
- In a house
I see Parky's getting in on the action now, dear god man who gives a, you'ld think the ******* Queen had died or summit, what a ******* fuss.
Which one of the dynamic duo said that?
- 2 people out of 400,000 people complain who heard the broadcase.
- The Mail gets involved and 30,000 people compain, probably very few who have heard the broadcast.
- 25-30,000 people bemused at the antics gather togethor. And I suspect most of these have heard the broadcast.
Maybe that will be an outcome... But unfortunately as a national newspaper is not using its publishing might to organise a call for good common sense - rather than parish council Daily Mail madness - a Facebook method of getting everyone grouped togethor seems as good an idea as any...
National Union of Journalists
^^^^
Listen to the calls, hardly 'obscene', in the true meaning of the word. You'd hear stronger language and content in 10 minutes of Never Mind the Buzzcocks...
I find this comment amusing given your location, thanks for living up to a stereotype
If you had to scale a call, 'obscene' IMHO would mean malicious intent, strong sexual content and/or graphic foul language.
If you listen to the calls, there was no swearing, other than a slang term for intercourse and there was no malicous intent directly aimed at Sachs.
I think we can all image what a truly 'obscene' call would sound like - and this wasn't such an example.
Of course, this (and this entire farce) does rely on some common sense being applied, which for many people seems a tall order.
I imagine calls of a far more graphic and vindictive nature have been made in the past, but the Daily Mail didn't have an axe to grind at the time...
Last edited:
If you had to scale a call, 'obscene' IMHO would mean malicious intent, strong sexual content and/or graphic foul language.
If you listen to the calls, there was no swearing, other than a slang term for intercourse and there was no malicous intent directly aimed at Sachs.
I think we can all image what a truly 'obscene' call would sound like - and this wasn't such an example.
Of course, this (and this entire farce) does rely on some common sense being applied, which for many people seems a tall order.
I would add disgusting and morally offensive to the meaning of the word and I expect it was being used in this context.
Good job it's neither of those things, anyone who was offended who isn't the recipient of the calls is an idiot.