|
|
Post by trubble on Apr 6, 2009 10:38:10 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on Apr 6, 2009 10:59:33 GMT
I wonder if Brand has any pension rights from his time at the BBC? Probably "Self Employed" anyway. It would be a drop in the ocean to take it out of Ross's salary I suppose. They could possibly have a contingency fund for this sort of thing.
It's a funny sort of ruling really compared with sums ITV have been fined by Ofcom for misdemeanours in the past
|
|
|
|
Post by rjpageuk on Apr 6, 2009 13:55:48 GMT
The BBC should pay it of course.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alpha Hooligan on Apr 6, 2009 14:40:57 GMT
Ross and Brand should be beaten unconscious by an angry mob and Broadcasting house razed to the ground by the R.A.F.
I believe in total solutions.
AH (tough on the BBC, tough on people who work for the BBC)
|
|
|
|
Post by gIant on Apr 6, 2009 20:50:48 GMT
I think that everyone involved ( the BBC included) should have to share the cost. After all the company, Brand, Ross and the other staff that made the show were all responsible for the comments being aired.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2009 22:45:35 GMT
Wot Alpha said ! Rjpageuk - god you are so wet , the BBC should pay ? What with ? Our money of course - Jeez we have been fined by a watchdog for something with which we disagreed . You couldnt make it up - a Kafka-esk nightmare .  |
|
|
|
Post by rjpageuk on Apr 6, 2009 23:08:57 GMT
Rjpageuk - god you are so wet , the BBC should pay ? What with ? Our money of course - Jeez we have been fined by a watchdog for something with which we disagreed . You couldnt make it up - a Kafka-esk nightmare . It is their responsibility! If I made a mistake at work I wouldnt expect to have to pay for the consequences, my employer are responsible for what I do. They can then discipline me accordingly. The BBC are responsible for their output not Ross/Brand! |
|
|
|
Post by Flatypus on Apr 6, 2009 23:31:21 GMT
Which in my view makes it ridiculous to penalise The BBC. A corporation, even a non-profit one like the BBC answers to most of the descriptions of a god. The only real way to deal with it would be to deal with the people involved. Since it is unassailable in terms of profit loss - and to the typical corporation that means only depriving the shareholders even more to maintain directors' fees - Brand and Ross and their producer should be subject to sanctions. The ideal would be some sort of support for Andrew Sachs suieng them personally but it's hard to see what for since nothing was libellous. Maybe there should be some kind of personal compensation for causing distress even at the risk of frivolous claims or curtailing free speech. Even then, it isn't what was said, it was the way that it was said, and that way really reveals a far more offensive attitude to the woman involved than to Sachs himself. Personally, I hope the bird that Brand fancies his chances with tells him she doesn't want him bragging to her relatives about getting her knickers off like he was 14 years old or blogs all his sexual and other failings.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2009 23:35:43 GMT
Rjpageuk - god you are so wet , the BBC should pay ? What with ? Our money of course - Jeez we have been fined by a watchdog for something with which we disagreed . You couldnt make it up - a Kafka-esk nightmare . It is their responsibility! If I made a mistake at work I wouldnt expect to have to pay for the consequences, my employer are responsible for what I do. They can then discipline me accordingly. The BBC are responsible for their output not Ross/Brand! So..................in your job as a dustbin lorry driver you squash a small child - that is YOUR responsibility not your employer, you who does the prison sentence for death by careless driving or pays the large fine NOT your employer . What you have said is what is wrong with this country - lack of acceptance of personal responsibility |
|
|
|
Post by rjpageuk on Apr 7, 2009 10:35:26 GMT
So..................in your job as a dustbin lorry driver you squash a small child - that is YOUR responsibility not your employer, you who does the prison sentence for death by careless driving or pays the large fine NOT your employer . What you have said is what is wrong with this country - lack of acceptance of personal responsibility You are talking about something completely different here obviously, you would be prosecuted for a criminal offense which being at work does not absolve you of this responsibility. If the police want to charge Ross with a criminal offense they can and that is independent of his work. If however his workplace are being fined for something they did wrong then it is their fault - they let the piece go out (not Ross). It is nothing to do with personal responsibility - Ross answers to his bosses at the BBC with regard his work output which is the same for any of us at work. |
|
|
|
Post by rjpageuk on Apr 7, 2009 10:40:30 GMT
Which in my view makes it ridiculous to penalise The BBC. A corporation, even a non-profit one like the BBC answers to most of the descriptions of a god. The only real way to deal with it would be to deal with the people involved. Since it is unassailable in terms of profit loss - and to the typical corporation that means only depriving the shareholders even more to maintain directors' fees You are quite cynical  I think fining the BBC is an effective way to punish them. They are affected by this just as any commercial media outlet are they just have different means of generating income. |
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Apr 7, 2009 10:56:20 GMT
Wot Alpha said ! Rjpageuk - god you are so wet , the BBC should pay ? What with ? Our money of course - Jeez we have been fined by a watchdog for something with which we disagreed . You couldnt make it up - a Kafka-esk nightmare . Hardly! The BBC will be without money, not you, you have already paid your money over, either the BBC gets to keep it or has to surrender it. It's not you getting fined, it's them. |
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on Apr 7, 2009 12:48:03 GMT
On the subject of the Beeb. Is it right that their commercial arm "Worldwide" should not be allowed to stray too far away from BBC programme remit?
I would agree to a certain extent - if it wasn't for the fact that the likes of Murdock could get away with murder and no-one would bat an eyelid. He has a hold on an increasing monopoly in the broadcast market and is doing more damage to the other broadcasters than anyone? If the BBC can demonstrate though that some of "Worldwide's" massive profits go straight back into programme making and means that the Licence fee could be reduced then I'm all for it! They can expand away!
|
|
|
|
Post by everso on Apr 7, 2009 14:41:53 GMT
I know that what Rob is saying is true, and that the BBC should pay - they are the employers. However, I voted for Ross because he's such a gobby bugger. Actually, I think Ross and Brand should pay up, together with the dopey producer who resigned. I just don't feel like being sensible like Rob.
I sincerely hope that when the time comes for his contract to be re-negotiated they seriously cut his salary.
|
|
|
|
Post by housesparrow on Apr 7, 2009 14:50:17 GMT
Anyway, I suppose legally the BBC, as employees of the person who made the decision to broadcast the programme, are ultimately responsible. Morally, I'm less sure. So I'm going to vote to get Riot back. Would she pay it, do you think?
|
|
|
|
Post by Coffeepot on Apr 7, 2009 19:19:05 GMT
I voted all of them, simply because I don't like Ross or Brand.
|
|
A.P.P.S
S C 
