Wednesday, 29 October 2008

Rant: Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand

I have been so angry about this all day that this is the first move I've made since coming home. No bath, no food, I just have to get this off my chest because I'm going to EXPLODE.
FUCK YOU DAILY MAIL!
And fuck you the 18,000 who complained about RB because you weren't his real listeners.
Let me say first I listened to the podcast the week it went out, half of it at work, and half wandering round on my ipod. And the only thing I remember thinking was, 'are they really leaving that message on his answerphone?' and laughing a bit. It was pretty funny when they kept ringing back and back; it WAS totally outrageous, but this is Russell FUCKING Brand. His whole schtick is being on the edge. If you don't want a presenter who is going to say close the the bone things, don't employ Russell-turned-up-as-Saddam-Hussein-on-Sept-12 Brand. It's not a difficult equation!
Do you know what really bugs me about this, though (apart from EVERYTHING)? The fucking Daily Mail contingent do NOT listen to Russell Brand anyway! So why should THEY deny me the pleasure? I don't try and get Littlejohn banned although he is completely and utterly offensive every week. Perhaps that's the backlash required. Let's get the fucking racist homophobe Littlejohn sacked in return, the fat fucking spudhead. COME ON, CENSOR ME, YOU FAT PRICK! No, you can't, can you?
Furthermore, Manuel, or whatever his fucking name is, said HE WAS NOT BOTHERED. He said there was too much of a fuss. And EVEN IF HE HADNT, wouldn't he be MORE offended by the fact his darling innocent granddaughter is in a group called the Satanic SLUTS, for fuck's sake? Perhaps he should have a words with that sweet, pure grandaughter of his about HER language!
And it is not anti-feminist of me to point that out. She was plastered over the paper today attacking someone who I genuinely care about, someone who I admire, and who is the greatest comedian of our generation (no, not Jonathan Ross). I've often heard Russell talking affectionately about her and her group or dance troupe or whatever they are on his show, and she is kicking him right in the balls in return. I hope her 'career' disintegrates, because Russell has a damn sight more fans than she does.
The whole ridiculous irony of the 'hurt and offence' is somewhat marred by pictures of her in fishnets and PVC protesting she never slept with Russell. Whether she did or she didn't, she should have, the dopey fucking mare. And as for the 'elderly' Andrew Sachs (alright, I've learnt his name now) that's the most AGEIST thing I've ever heard. Pathetic. He will probably get punched on the street now by some irate RB or JRO lover, so well done, you complaining ninnies.
Is Ponderland being shelved now? I'm fucking furious about this! I'm even furious about Jonathan Ross getting canned, and I could take him or leave him. He is pretty funny, if a bit crude.
My boyfriend said 'it's all for show and it will all blow over' and I KNOW that's true, and I KNOW they have to be seen to be doing something BUT it still makes me angry that we have to pander to these soppy fucking cunts going 'oh, I'm offended by it', then DON'T LISTEN TO IT! You're not offended by it, you just want to destroy Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross because they are both mega rich, funny, and happy. They actually have happy lives and you can't fucking STAND IT. You just wan the universe to be bland and one dimensional and probably full of gardening programmes and fucking Terry Wogan.
To all who complained; I HATE YOU! And Morrissey hates you, so there.
Forget vote Obama, reinstate Brand NOW. You're lucky he even does your shitty Radio 2 show.

27 comments:

James said...

Brilliant!

MunchyBrain said...

Woah. I don't like Brand or Ross, I don't think they should be fired, though. Even though I disagree with the stuff about how great Brand is...I admire your passion!

Liam said...

i couldn't agree more. why were the bbc doing fucking interviews with members of the public who clearly wouldn't have listened to the show, never mind understand what went on in it's full context. fucking twats. i couldn't agree more about your littlejohn comment. he is the biggest bag of shit since, well, ever. no-one comes close. this is a travesty to the free nature of our society, and makes it ONE NIL to the nanny state the daily mail so desperately wants us to live in. long live russell brand.

lightupvirginmary said...

Thanks all! :-) I'm feeling better already; surely RB will take his show to another station who will realise they are lucky to have him?

Liam said...

to be honest, i feel a little for the bbc, they're caught in a very difficult place for right now, and if russell hadn't resigned, some shall we say, less adjustable people would've lost their jobs because of this. russ has saved some honest people with this decision. i just read also, that when the show was aired, it recieved TWO complaints. that fucking stupid is that. im going to work my way through your past blogs now, haha :)

Chris Stokes said...

The only person to have come out of this with the most integrity is Russell Brand. He has behaved completely maturely and appropriately. The joke was fairly juvenile, but that's sort of what he does, and he approaches his juvenile whimsy from a very balanced, intelligent and considered position. Russell Brand is brilliant. Plus it was a pretty funny idea. The reason it didn't work? Having Jonathan Ross scupper Russell Brand's comedic genius in the middle of the whole thing with his clumsy attempts to keep up with Brand's wit. I am with you, the moaning about it - certainly from the Mail reading demographic - is pathetic. Her Nibs' behaviour has been poor, Andrew Sachs has been made a fool of with, like you say, patronising ageist claptrap and Jonathan Ross... Well I think we might differ on him. I think he's been a complete moron. The producer who let it be broadcast after having asked Sachs' permission (which was denied) was a bit naughty too. But Russell Brand has seen an amusing idea go to complete shit and had his name trashed. I have nothing but sympathy for him, and think he has behaved absolutely impeccably!

In short, I once again loved your post and was hoping I'd see it mentioned on your blog at some point :)

Anonymous said...

What an inane rant. But typical of a Russell Brand fan. You, like most of the pro-Brand/Ross camp, just don't get it do you? I'm no Daily Mail reader, but I do think Brand & Ross are a pair of sanctimonious pseudo-intellectual pricks and am quite glad they're (albeit temporarily) off my radio and tv.

You could've checked some facts before embarking on this rant too dear: Andrew Sachs didn't say he wasn't bothered, and this is the crux of the matter. Had his permission been adequately sought, there wouldn't have been an issue. It wasn't, and thus, there is. But that doesn't matter to you Russell Brand fans does it? Just jump on the good ol' anti-Daily Mail bandwagon.

Oh, and by the way, irony is you berating these Daily Mail Readers/complainers (oh so easy for you to generalise) for allegedly not having heard/read transcripts of the broadcast, when you've clearly not read up on the facts of the complaint yourself. I'm all for a good debate, but please, do some research first, and maybe retain an open mind?

lightupvirginmary said...

How much more of an open mind can I have than of hearing it first hand before all this furore, and NOT BEING OFFENDED BY IT?
Have you tried turning off the radio or tv when Russell brand is on, you fucking fascist?

Anonymous said...

Ah, I see, it's the English language you're failing to understand ...

An open mind would be the ability to at least attempt to view the situation from both sides. When I first heard about this palaver, my initial feeling was that it was probably a media over-reaction, possibly an attempt to steer media coverage away from the boring old credit crunch. So, I went and looked up the podcast, and lo and behold, thought they did indeed overstep the mark. My opinion doesn't have anything to do with my personal feelings on Brand & Ross's take on humour, but on the responsibility of the broadcasters in performing such a stunt. They're complete pillocks for not having sought permission and legal advice and now, having made their beds, they can lie in 'em.

Obviously, this comment will fall on deaf ears, as your response to my last one was to call me a 'fucking fascist'. I think you'll find that your views fit the description of fascism far more than mine.

lightupvirginmary said...

I don't. I'm not telling you what to watch or listen to, dependent on my tastes. I say, live and let live.
I CAN see both sides. I already said RB and Ross were 'outrageous', which they were. But they don't deserve this public witch hunt, and people like yourself so quick to jump on the bandwagon and sneer.
Andrew Sachs DID say he thought it should blow over. I saw it myself. The granddaughter just wants cash, with no talent.
PS: Russell will be on V on Thursday on Channel 4, Ponderland... try not to watch it and complain, won't ya.

Liam said...

anon, are you aware of the fact only 2 people complained when the initial show was broadcast? does this not show you the power of the media? i personally believed the interview was risque, albeit as risque as you can get when dealing with an escort, an escort a member of the satanic sluts, an escort, a member of the satanic sluts, and a former page three model.

if you were gravely offended (in all interviews andrew sachs has never gone beyond 'disappointed, or 'i wouldn't like to think so' as his verbal missiles towards the antics), then i suggest you simply stay clear. i applaud you on following up and listening to the podcast, unlike most of the critics, but, like many in britain today, you want to be involved in everyone else's business. the littlejohn example sums this up perfectly. i personally find reality tv morose, degrading and woeful, but i choose to turn off. i don't run to ofcom and complain. it is people reading such material as, the ever pessimistic mail, and articles such as this > http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1871165.ece which make the liberal world ever less enjoyable.

Grahaeme Jones said...

I'm interested in your comment that reads... "responsibility of the broadcasters in performing such a stunt. They're complete pillocks for not having sought permission and legal advice and now, having made their beds, they can lie in 'em."... why is it that Johnathan Ross is being held responsible when he was a guest on the show? Why is it that Russell Brand is having to take the whole of the blame when he is the presenter of the show? The final decision about what to broadcast lies with neither of these two but with the show's producer. The show was pre-recorded with more than enough time to edit the comments if there was any doubt regarding the objections of Andrew Sachs. The cynic in me suggests that the BBC was willing to use to noteriety of Russell Brand to generate some publicity but got scared when the numbers of complaints started to soar. Where is the production team who hold the responsibility to decide what should and should not go to air? I dont see their names in headlines. I dont see them being hounded out of their jobs. Yes, the comments were out of order but the reaction and resulting consequences has been even more so.

mexicanspitfire said...

I knew you'd be consumed with indignation about this, I can't believe even a quarter of the complainants even heard the broadcast. It proves to me once again that the majority of the british general public are miserable, imbecilic, humorless bores and because of them there will be no more RB podcasts.

I always love your rants the best. Munchybrain is right about your passion x

jonathan said...

"Let's get the fucking racist homophobe Littlejohn sacked in return, the fat fucking spudhead"

This is my favourite sentence written on any blog ever.

Kevin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ossian said...

Where most people are going wrong over this is it's not about freedom of broadcasting, it's about nuisance phone calls. There is no freedom to make abusive phone calls. Freedom of speech does not include freedom to shout "Fire!" in a crowded place and cause a stampede, and it doesn't include freedom to make harrassing phone calls to people. They've done the equivalent of smashing a car windscreen or happy-slapping some old geezer and broadcasting the result on YouTube. It was Ross, by the way. I read the transcript. Everything Brand said was to try and avert the car crash that he had the cop-on to foresee, but that other ignoramus didn't.

But if Ross came round my place saying, I fucked your granddaughter, I'd say OY WOSS, NOOOOOOOO! (in a Harry Enfield stylee).

lightupvirginmary said...

you're right; it's that and the fact it's the BBC. So I see no reason why Russell can't take his radio show elsewhere. I don't care about JRo. He can do whatever.

Ossian said...

I agree about Littlejohn. Him and that Top Gear bozo.

Red said...

I wasn't even in the country when this happened (and even if I had, I wouldn't have known of it because radio is so 1940s), but anything that gets Jonathan Woss off the air has got to be a good thing.

* (asterisk) said...

Hello. I'm with Grahaeme Jones on this. The fault lies almost exclusively with the BBC not exercising at least some editorial control. I don't agree with censorship, but somebody should be listening to stuff before it goes out, with a view to whether it is likely to cause offence (which I admit is shaky ground). The two offended listeners notwithstanding, the real victim here was Sachs, and I'm not that sure he even knew much about it until a week later!

Anonymous said...

Are you mad or just a product of the vulgar age we live in? So it's okay to ring an old guy and tell him you've f*cked his grandayghter, is it? That passes as humour in your world? Personally, I think that smug, narcissistic arse Brand should have been arrested by the police and charged with making obscene phone calls. I think your hormones are distorting your sense of moral perspective, especially as you don't care what happens to Ross, just Brand, whereas if you really believed your own arguments, you'd be supportive of both of them.
Anonymous -- Sunday November 09 2008, @04:55AM (#314112)

lightupvirginmary said...

not only does that not make sense, it's old news.
Hormones?!!! Sexist!
PS. Yes I'm the postergirl for vulgarity, haven't you heard.

Andy Borehol said...

I actually liked this one. Largely for the "FUCK YOU DAILY MAIL" because it's a tabloid nazi rag less worthy to wipe the shit from arse than the infamous Sun.

Nevertheless, I would question if Mr Brand is actually worth the money (in licence fees) that you might have paid for him. I mean if he's that good, surely he might consider a whip round rather than any salaried income. I'd also like to see Mr Ross try that one and not come away with two black eyes and a kick in the crotch.

Satanic Sluts? Not really sluts, (unless Russell Brand has a penchant for sluts, which you could infer) or merely another burlesque troupe. Isn't it meant to shock?

Que?

dom said...

You post comments on The F Word blog, so I'm presuming that you describe yourself as a feminist. Just curious as to how your feminism sits alongside your admiration for Russell Brand...a man who admits to screwing "over 2,000" women & has boasted of screwing "19 women in one day in Ireland"?

The whole jist of Brand/Ross' comments was that Brand had "fucked" a girl. Her grandfather was subjected to an abusive and disturbing phone message. You describe the woman as a "dozy mare".

Please don't post on the F Word blog in future...your comments are not welcome & you are not a feminist, nor is Brand, he's a cynical MTV presenter muff artist.

From a feminist.

lightupvirginmary said...

Russell Brand has slept with 2,000 willing women (well, probably more like 3000 by now) and married one other 'dozy mare': Katy Perry. I like him because he makes me laugh. Don't come on my blog and tell me when and where I can't post or what I can and can't say! I fight feminism every single day. I AM A WOMAN. I also enjoy laughing, bitching and being silly.
The most hilarious part is I just clicked on your name and you're a MAN! So a man is telling me I'm not a feminist, and I can't come to a feminist space anymore. Well, not much changes does it?
The hypocrisy is actually BREATHTAKING.

lightupvirginmary said...

Also, no one ever said Russell Brand was a feminist. He's quite sexist and immature in his relationships. That's something to feel sorry for him for, if anyfink!

Spencer Rose said...

A male telling a female that she's not a feminist? You couldn't find a more conceited, arrogant or sexist comment if you subscribed to Richard Littlejohn's column for the next 10 years. It's comparable to Nick Griffin telling British Asians that they're not British and that 'that in no way constitutes racism'. Dom, not only do you typify sexism, you manage to take it to new heights. Disgraceful.