These are some notes we came up with from different points of view and could be argued;
- Younger generations wouldn't be offended and in stead, would find it funny
- Family would obviously be upset and offended
- People don't want their money to fund such a controversial show
- Was only aired because producer was inexperienced and didn't realise the potential outrage it would cause, placing the blame on the BBC, not the entertainers.
Were BBC's actions correct?
- Shouldn't have been aired as it wasn't recorded live
- BBC had the option to prevent the public hearing it but passed it up
- Russell Brand shouldn't have been the only one to to take the brunt of the blame, Ross was just as fundamental in the harassment, yet virtually got off unscathed
- Brand shouldn't have been used as a scapegoat, especially to save the BBC's reputation
- On the other hand, it was a smart move on their behalf, and justice for the fee paying public, so it was resolved in some way
Was Any Lasting Damage Done?
- Jonathan Ross has to be more careful with what he says so that the same ting does not happen again
- No, because Brand was used as a scapegoat, all the blame was placed on him as he is branded the rogue of show business and he could be blames for influencing Ross, who is usually uncontroversial. Also upon his resignation speech, he was told to "big up" BBC and say how great it was to work for them
- Ross a huge star for BBC so has more power and influence, therefore was not sacked
The recording from youtube: