In the latest news regarding the saga of Russell Brand, Jonathan Ross and their combined obscene phone messages left on Andrew Sachs' telephone is that Brand has resigned (expeditiously I think, before he was sacked), and Ross has finally been suspended from broadcasting until the BBC have investigated and reported on their findings.
What I fail to understand is the manner in which the BBC continues to refer to the whole episode as a 'prank', rather than stating exactly what it was, a case of gross misconduct. According to the Oxford Dictionary, a prank is 'a practical joke or mischievous act', neither description coming anywhere near defining what this puerile pair were involved in. Turning to the Oxford Dictionary once again we read that a joke is defined as 'a thing to cause amusement' and 'a trick played for fun', and I don't believe that any right-minded person would be able to describe what they did in either of those terms. On the other hand, the word joker is defined as a 'foolish or inept person'. Now that comes close to describing this duo!
I think that one of the things that causes such intense furore in this matter is that both of these people are so grossly overpaid for what they do, Jonathan Ross in particular, who receives a reported £6 million of licence payers' money for his brand of so-called humour.
The best result of all would be for this pair to be removed from broadcasting altogether, and simply fade into oblivion.
No comments:
Post a Comment