Latest: the BBC will not sack Jonathan Ross
Peter Hoskin 11:56amThe BBC Trust releases the findings of an inquiry into the Andrew Sachs row today. Sky are already reporting, though, that there will be no ruling to sack Jonathan Ross. Expect more details later.



Previous






WINSTON PLACE
November 21st, 2008 12:35pm Report this commentI am a 72 year old grandfather and I loath the languague that appears on my Tv from time to time.
Is there no decency in this country anymore.
The likes of two chefs using offensive language on their Tv programmes.
When they are on adverts on TV no such offensivelanguage is said.
biggestaspidistra
November 21st, 2008 1:20pm Report this commentWhen they are on adverts on TV no such offensivelanguage is said.
or when they appear on US television. No swearing, several 'darlings'.
David
November 21st, 2008 1:25pm Report this comment"I loath the languague that appears on my Tv from time to time."
If it bothers you so much, switch off.
cuffleyburgers
November 21st, 2008 1:58pm Report this commentDavid
he can switch off alreight but he still has to pay the dashed licence tax?
That is the point.
Charles Westwood
November 21st, 2008 2:20pm Report this commentWhat on earth do you have to do to get sacked from the BBC?
I would imagine without seeing the contract that there would be a provision providing for dismissal or contract termination for gross misconduct or for bringing the BBC into disrepute. How does this very public misconduct not meet whatever definition is relevant.
Or is it one test for lower paid employees and one for apparently "indispensable irreplaceable talented celebs"? or are management scared that the cost of a contractual settlement would cause such public disquiet and uproar that they would lose their jobs?
Pitifully weak management are the real culprits here. This is not an issue about free speech but about an abuse of the privilege of having access to broadcasting opportunities.
It is culpably weak of top management to confuse the two and to seek a compromise between them by taking risible half measures against Ross.
Hopefully however the public will respond to his threatened re-appearance with a spontaneous display of disinterest and/or displeasure amounting to a commercial imperative to remove him from our screens.
Perhaps it is not only Ross and the token scapegoats who should be taking their leave over this issue.
And as for Ross himself, what manner of man would like to be seen as having a lower moral compass than Russell Brand's?
Time will tell.
Charles, Glasgow.
Rossle Bland
November 21st, 2008 3:19pm Report this commentWell said Charles.
Ross (Who I quite liked on the Saturday morning radio) seems to believe he is bigger than the parent who spawned him.
Summer
November 21st, 2008 3:58pm Report this commentCharles Westwood
What on earth do you have to do to get sacked from the BBC?
Be a member of the British National Pary!!
Burt
November 21st, 2008 4:01pm Report this commentI suppose its difficult to take action on an organisation stuffed full of overblown, self regarding media "personalities".
The BBC must become a subscription service. We must have the right to choose our service provider.
Trumpeter Lanfried
November 21st, 2008 4:04pm Report this commentCharles @ 2.20 p.m. You ask, 'What do you have to do to get sacked from the BBC?'
Not difficult: Praise Margaret Thatcher or use the phrase 'Palestinian terrorist.'
Fergus Pickering
November 22nd, 2008 3:44am Report this commentDavid, that 'witchoff' thing is not really an answer, is it. Suppose the BBC showed sdustic pornography to up the ratings. Would it be sufficient to say that those few of us that didn't like it could justswitch off. The fact that Ross in anywhere on the public broadcasting airwaves demeans us all. OF COURSE I don't watch the greasy ratbag. But I want him gone, nevertheless.
Back to top