| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Helen May
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 19382
Location: Cheshire
|
 Posted: Fri May 22, 2009 1:40 pm Post subject: No More Live Jonathan Ross Shows on Radio 2 |
 |
|
BBC 1 o'clock news reported that his show is no longer to go out live.
Is it the beginning of the end for him?
H
_________________
88 - 91 FM this is Radio 2 from the BBC!
I said it live on air in the studio with Jeremy Vine on 10/3/2005 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rachel
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 22, 2009 3:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Maybe he's just getting old and would like a lie in on a Saturday morning.
If it is the end, or at least the start of it- we may miss him, in that, he's a nice enough chap and sometimes he can be funny, kind of way, but we won't miss his blunt rudeness, when he goes. If it was up to me- he'd be long gone already. He is in the same position as a number of MPs. He should have fallen on his own sword with the others at the time. He could have recovered from that but not now, to me, he'll always be the guy that wasn't man-enough to do the right thing.
Last edited by Rachel on Sat May 23, 2009 5:10 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
colby
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 1216
|
| Posted: Fri May 22, 2009 3:45 pm Post subject: Re: No More Live Jonathan Ross Shows on Radio 2 |
|
|
| Helen May wrote: | BBC 1 o'clock news reported that his show is no longer to go out live.
Is it the beginning of the end for him? |
Hopefully. To be fair, though, I don't think his show needs to be live. I guess it could also be that guests will be more readily available during weekdays. It also reduces the internal staffing overhead somewhat, too!
It doesn't matter either way to me, though, as I find find Rick Wakeman over on Planet Rock a much more amusing listen on a Saturday morning (and the music's a helluva lot better). I haven't intentionally tuned to Ross for a long, long time now. He annoys me almost as much - almost, but not quite - as another R2 presenter whose name shall not be mentioned!
_________________
(signature and avatar removed, violated forum Rule 2.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aviddiva
Joined: 11 Oct 2008
Posts: 1135
Location: Wakefield, West Yorkshire
|
| Posted: Fri May 22, 2009 5:20 pm Post subject: No more Jonathan Ross live shows on Radio 2 |
|
|
I prefer Rick Wakeman on Planet Rock too! Ross is too concerned with himself to ask his guests any decent questions. Jim Shelley in the Mirror is always mocking his lack of research on the TV show.
_________________
We are loonies and we are proud!
- Campbell Bain in 'Takin' Over The Asylum' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Triumph Herald
Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 85
Location: Bucks
|
| Posted: Sat May 23, 2009 9:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
As far as I'm concerned any glimmer of originality, wit and excitement went out of Ross years ago. Dull and predictable.
Maybe they are trying to push him towards quitting? Much cheaper for the BBC if he were to walk out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iwarburton
Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 2133
Location: Northumberland
|
| Posted: Sat May 23, 2009 10:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Makes not a scrap of difference to me, as I go over to Classic FM at 10am on Saturdays.
Ian. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RockitRon
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 7646
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Number Six
Joined: 14 Dec 2006
Posts: 439
Location: In the village
|
| Posted: Mon May 25, 2009 11:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
I suppose us old-timers aren't as easily offended as you young'uns.
I've never heard Ross say anything offensive on R2. At worst his humour is no worse thn the 'Carry On' type. I certainly couldn't see that any of his recent stand-ins wandering anywhere close to being up to the job.
As for being criticised by The Mirror, Oh, the irony
_________________
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John W
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 3367
Location: Warwickshire, UK
|
| Posted: Mon May 25, 2009 1:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Number Six wrote: |
As for being criticised by The Mirror, Oh, the irony |
ROSS MUST BE SAYING 'INFAMY, INFAMY, THEY'VE GOT IT INFAMY! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
davem
Joined: 13 Mar 2009
Posts: 115
|
| Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 6:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I love his show its part of my saturday mornings and i dont like it when hes not on.Pre recorded or not im going to carry on listening i know hes 'up himself' isnt that why people put themselves in to the entertainment industry?The Brand/sachs affair was wrong and he has done his penance and has apologised take johnny walkers indiscretions into account and you have to forgive.His salary is too big for a large public funded body but who ever wrote the cheque must shoulder part of the blame for that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
colby
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 1216
|
| Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 8:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| davem wrote: | | His salary is too big for a large public funded body but who ever wrote the cheque must shoulder part of the blame for that? |
The BBC isn't a "public funded body". And whatever agreements are signed in respect of remuneration for high profile star presenters are sanctioned at the very top.
_________________
(signature and avatar removed, violated forum Rule 2.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MadeinSurrey
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 3130
Location: The Beautiful South
|
| Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 9:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
The BBC isn't a "public funded body". And whatever agreements are signed in respect of remuneration for high profile star presenters are sanctioned at the very top
What's the Licence Fee then?
_________________
MiS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
colby
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 1216
|
| Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 9:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MadeinSurrey wrote: | The BBC isn't a "public funded body". And whatever agreements are signed in respect of remuneration for high profile star presenters are sanctioned at the very top
What's the Licence Fee then? |
The BBC isn't funded from central taxation or any other "public" funds as are many "state broadcasters" around the world and in my opinion it's important that it isn't. The licence fee is - and always has been - a means to provide funding for the corporation that is independent of government sources of funding (that being the definition of "public funding"), and this principle is enshrined in the BBC's Charter which enables it to retain independence.
The Licence Fee is exactly that - a Fee that's collected from people who choose to own and operate television receiving apparatus in the UK - and the revenue from this is then passed to the BBC after agreed admin costs are deducted by the collecting agency (ie: The Post Office).
If the BBC were a public-funded body its employees would be civil servants, but they're not.
_________________
(signature and avatar removed, violated forum Rule 2.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MadeinSurrey
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 3130
Location: The Beautiful South
|
| Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 11:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
The Post Office no longer collects Licence Fees.
By any sensible definition, the BBC is public funded - we pay for it.
_________________
MiS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
colby
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 1216
|
| Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 12:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MadeinSurrey wrote: | | The Post Office no longer collects Licence Fees. |
That's true. My mistake. Responsibility was handed over to TVLicensing some time ago.
| MadeinSurrey wrote: | | By any sensible definition, the BBC is public funded - we pay for it. |
Er, not quite. Licence Fee payers pay for it. That's the critical difference. We have a choice.
_________________
(signature and avatar removed, violated forum Rule 2.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
davem
Joined: 13 Mar 2009
Posts: 115
|
| Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 12:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am starting to lose the will to live!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MadeinSurrey
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 3130
Location: The Beautiful South
|
| Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 1:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| colby wrote: | | MadeinSurrey wrote: | | The Post Office no longer collects Licence Fees. |
That's true. My mistake. Responsibility was handed over to TVLicensing some time ago.
| MadeinSurrey wrote: | | By any sensible definition, the BBC is public funded - we pay for it. |
Er, not quite. Licence Fee payers pay for it. That's the critical difference. We have a choice. |
Er, it's still funded by the public.
Dave, I'm not surprised! 
_________________
MiS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
colby
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 1216
|
| Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 1:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MadeinSurrey wrote: | | Er, it's still funded by the public. |
So is Motor Insurance; if we choose to drive on the public highway we have to pay it. The motor insurers can't claim they're being "publically funded" though, can they?
_________________
(signature and avatar removed, violated forum Rule 2.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MadeinSurrey
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 3130
Location: The Beautiful South
|
| Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 1:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hardly the same though is it Colby? There are hundreds of Motor Insurers, but only one BBC. We only pay for all the non-BBC channels indirectly.
_________________
MiS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
colby
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 1216
|
| Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 1:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MadeinSurrey wrote: | | Hardly the same though is it Colby? There are hundreds of Motor Insurers, but only one BBC. |
The principle is the same, however. You could argue that, like insurers, we have the choice of what we view the BBC's output on, but we still need to pay for the right to do so.
_________________
(signature and avatar removed, violated forum Rule 2.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rachel
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 2:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Government sets the fee, so it ( the Government- a public body) has overall control over the BBC's total funding level. If lots of people decided not to have a TV and no TV licence - the Government , not the BBC, would introduce a new tax to fund the BBC. That's just the way it is. The BBC can not set the fee , therefore has only budgetry spending control. It's a bit like giving children far too much pocket money, they have no interest in how the money was raised- the toil and struggle you went to for them; they spend it all in the sweet shop with impunity. The BBC is the same.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
colby
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 1216
|
| Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 2:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rachel wrote: | | The Government sets the fee, so it ( the Government- a public body) has overall control over the BBC's total funding level. If lots of people decided not to have a TV and no TV licence - the Government , not the BBC, would introduce a new tax to fund the BBC. That's just the way it is. |
No it isn't the way it is at all. The BBC's Charter prevents the BBC from being funded directly from taxation - that's what underpins it's "independence" and no party in government would have the nerve to even suggest funding from taxation due to the implications that such a method of funding would bring. The only alternative (as is likely in the very near future) is one or more subscription models - a baseline contribution for core radio & TV, another for "premium" output and another on top for stuff like HD. Then there's all the other stuff like web, iPlayer, podcasting, etc etc. All this has to be paid for, and obviously the licence fee predates all this stuff as a funding model.
| Rachel wrote: | | The BBC can not set the fee , therefore has only budgetry spending control. It's a bit like giving children far too much pocket money, they have no interest in how the money was raised- the toil and struggle you went to for them; they spend it all in the sweet shop with impunity. The BBC is the same. |
I don't agree at all. The DG is more than aware of the pressure that he's under to manage the books properly; you only have to look at the way the Beeb has been forced to sell off major assets - real estate, resources like the former BBC Outside Broadcasts, which is now wholly owned by SIS at a cost of £40 million and of course cutting staff costs and outsourcing services - to realise that Beeb is acutely aware of its fiscal responsibilities.
I think the days of "spending in a sweetshop without impunity" are long gone. It was certainly the case back in the 60s and - to a slightly lesser extent - the 70s, but definitely not in 2009.
_________________
(signature and avatar removed, violated forum Rule 2.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MadeinSurrey
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 3130
Location: The Beautiful South
|
| Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 3:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| colby wrote: | | MadeinSurrey wrote: | | Hardly the same though is it Colby? There are hundreds of Motor Insurers, but only one BBC. |
The principle is the same, however. You could argue that, like insurers, we have the choice of what we view the BBC's output on, but we still need to pay for the right to do so. |
No it isn't the same at all .
_________________
MiS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rachel
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| colby wrote: | | Rachel wrote: | | The Government sets the fee, so it ( the Government- a public body) has overall control over the BBC's total funding level. If lots of people decided not to have a TV and no TV licence - the Government , not the BBC, would introduce a new tax to fund the BBC. That's just the way it is. |
No it isn't the way it is at all. The BBC's Charter prevents the BBC from being funded directly from taxation - that's what underpins it's "independence" and no party in government would have the nerve to even suggest funding from taxation due to the implications that such a method of funding would bring. The only alternative (as is likely in the very near future) is one or more subscription models - a baseline contribution for core radio & TV, another for "premium" output and another on top for stuff like HD. Then there's all the other stuff like web, iPlayer, podcasting, etc etc. All this has to be paid for, and obviously the licence fee predates all this stuff as a funding model.
| Rachel wrote: | | The BBC can not set the fee , therefore has only budgetry spending control. It's a bit like giving children far too much pocket money, they have no interest in how the money was raised- the toil and struggle you went to for them; they spend it all in the sweet shop with impunity. The BBC is the same. |
I don't agree at all. The DG is more than aware of the pressure that he's under to manage the books properly; you only have to look at the way the Beeb has been forced to sell off major assets - real estate, resources like the former BBC Outside Broadcasts, which is now wholly owned by SIS at a cost of £40 million and of course cutting staff costs and outsourcing services - to realise that Beeb is acutely aware of its fiscal responsibilities.
I think the days of "spending in a sweetshop without impunity" are long gone. It was certainly the case back in the 60s and - to a slightly lesser extent - the 70s, but definitely not in 2009. |
The BBC Charter is a load of chuffty, and can be changed at will- it exists only as a vehicle to carry clueless people along to thinking that they have some sort of say in what goes on.
The BBC has no fiscal responsibilities in the proper sense of the word; just spending responsibilities.
You have an apostrophe in the wrong place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RockitRon
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 7646
|
| Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And there we have illustrated the difference between theory and reality.
_________________
Ron |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
colby
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 1216
|
| Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 4:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MadeinSurrey wrote: | | colby wrote: | | MadeinSurrey wrote: | | Hardly the same though is it Colby? There are hundreds of Motor Insurers, but only one BBC. |
The principle is the same, however. You could argue that, like insurers, we have the choice of what we view the BBC's output on, but we still need to pay for the right to do so. |
No it isn't the same at all . |
It's exactly the same.
| Rachel wrote: | | The BBC Charter is a load of chuffty, and can be changed at will- it exists only as a vehicle to carry clueless people along to thinking that they have some sort of say in what goes on. |
Absolute nonsense. So people running the organisation are not accountable in any way?
| Rachel wrote: | | The BBC has no fiscal responsibilities in the proper sense of the word; just spending responsibilities. |
It has a responsibility to balance its books.
| Rachel wrote: | | You have an apostrophe in the wrong place. |
Quite a rarity, then.
_________________
(signature and avatar removed, violated forum Rule 2.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rachel
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RockitRon wrote: |
And there we have illustrated the difference between theory and reality. |
That reminds me of really funny joke Ron. I'll post it in the coffee bar later in the week. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
davem
Joined: 13 Mar 2009
Posts: 115
|
| Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ive seen nothing like this! wherever JR gets his money its a lot do we agree? well i dont care i like his show and dont care what anyone thinks and i like Russell Brand but i think he should have been on 6 music or radio 1 not R2 and i dont care how much hes got in his wallet either or under his quilt.Plus you can call him 'the insufferable one'or 'the unmentionable' we know you mean Chris Evans so save some typing time and put Chris Evans it wont make him appear and bite your bum,hes not going away hes popular! i got used to it and i found you can turn him off when you want to and no one shouts at you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
colby
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 1216
|
| Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 9:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| davem wrote: | | Ive seen nothing like this! wherever JR gets his money its a lot do we agree? well i dont care i like his show and dont care what anyone thinks and i like Russell Brand but i think he should have been on 6 music or radio 1 not R2 and i dont care how much hes got in his wallet either or under his quilt.Plus you can call him 'the insufferable one'or 'the unmentionable' we know you mean Chris Evans so save some typing time and put Chris Evans it wont make him appear and bite your bum,hes not going away hes popular! i got used to it and i found you can turn him off when you want to and no one shouts at you. |
Looks like somebody's getting a bit ratty!!!
As for "the unmentionable one" - do you honestly think I intentionally tune it to his "show"? Don't be daft!
I do have to suffer his utterly appalling and annoying trails in other people's programmes though. You think I'm alone in reacting this way? The answer is an emphatic "no".
Honestly....
_________________
(signature and avatar removed, violated forum Rule 2.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lord Evan Elpuss
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 3417
Location: Cloud Cuckoo Land
|
| Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 9:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| davem wrote: | | Ive seen nothing like this! wherever JR gets his money its a lot do we agree? well i dont care i like his show and dont care what anyone thinks and i like Russell Brand but i think he should have been on 6 music or radio 1 not R2 and i dont care how much hes got in his wallet either or under his quilt. |
Russell Brand was airlifted into Radio 2 from 6 music. In any case, isn't BBC 7 the station for comedians?
_________________
Lord Evan Elpuss, Your ideal job is a Lumberjack. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
davem
Joined: 13 Mar 2009
Posts: 115
|
| Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 6:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
You are correct about R7 sorry i stand corrected. i wont edit it that would be silly i dont listen to R7 so it slipped my mind
Ratty? no try harder you wont even get near,i agree trails are repetitve so are your complaints about Chris Evans both are being done to death you do it on most threads. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
colby
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 1216
|
| Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 8:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| davem wrote: | | Ratty? no try harder you wont even get near, |
| davem wrote: | | i agree trails are repetitve so are your complaints about Chris Evans both are being done to death you do it on most threads. |
It's not that trails are repetitive in themselves, it's just the annoying trails by a certain unmentionable overgrown kid of a presenter that get my goat.
Besides, I don't see how a substitution of the words "the unmentionable one" for a certain presenter's name is any more repetitive than praising another presenter like Richard Allinson. The difference is that one is disliked (by some forum members) and the other is liked (by some forum members).
There's at least some measure of balance there, I'd say.
_________________
(signature and avatar removed, violated forum Rule 2.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mark occomore
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 9955
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 6:13 pm Post subject: Re: No More Live Jonathan Ross Shows on Radio 2 |
|
|
| Helen May wrote: | BBC 1 o'clock news reported that his show is no longer to go out live.
Is it the beginning of the end for him?
H |
I doubt it as he'll see his contract out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NickSheffield
Joined: 22 Jul 2007
Posts: 508
|
| Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 9:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Heavens, this topic has made some heat on here hasn't it. Who would have thought that the mis-spending of an arm of the government would create so much fuss.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
colby
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 1216
|
| Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 10:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mark occomore wrote: | | Helen May wrote: | BBC 1 o'clock news reported that his show is no longer to go out live.
Is it the beginning of the end for him?
H |
I doubt it as he'll see his contract out. |
So....... is it the beginning of the end for him once his contract runs out, Mark?
| NickSheffield wrote: | | Heavens, this topic has made some heat on here hasn't it. Who would have thought that the mis-spending of an arm of the government would create so much fuss.... |
I thought we were discussing the Beeb, Nick?
_________________
(signature and avatar removed, violated forum Rule 2.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lord Evan Elpuss
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 3417
Location: Cloud Cuckoo Land
|
| Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 10:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NickSheffield wrote: | | Who would have thought that the mis-spending of an arm of the government would create so much fuss.... |
Take a look at the furore at MP's (of all main partys) expenses to gauge some perception of that kind of public opinion.
_________________
Lord Evan Elpuss, Your ideal job is a Lumberjack. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RockitRon
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 7646
|
| Posted: Thu May 28, 2009 9:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| NickSheffield wrote: | | Heavens, this topic has made some heat on here hasn't it. Who would have thought that the mis-spending of an arm of the government would create so much fuss.... |
Yeah, such a lot of hot air and split hairs.
_________________
Ron |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
colby
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 1216
|
| Posted: Thu May 28, 2009 9:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RockitRon wrote: | | NickSheffield wrote: | | Heavens, this topic has made some heat on here hasn't it. Who would have thought that the mis-spending of an arm of the government would create so much fuss.... |
Yeah, such a lot of hot air and split hairs. |
...... and, let's not forget, gross misconceptions.
Nothing like a good discussion to liven up an otherwise dead forum though, eh?
_________________
(signature and avatar removed, violated forum Rule 2.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rachel
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 28, 2009 9:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| colby wrote: |
Nothing like a good discussion to liven up an otherwise dead forum though, eh? |
Some discussion, Colby, is like a knife to the Jugular, it serves only to drain the life from the forum. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
colby
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 1216
|
| Posted: Thu May 28, 2009 9:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rachel wrote: | | colby wrote: |
Nothing like a good discussion to liven up an otherwise dead forum though, eh? |
Some discussion, Colby, is like a knife to the Jugular, it serves only to drain the life from the forum. |
I suppose we could always discuss what we had for breakfast. Oh, hang on, millions of users of Twitter already do that.
_________________
(signature and avatar removed, violated forum Rule 2.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
