Talk:The Russell Brand Show (radio show)

He has made a statment
Russell Brand Has Made The Following Statment Ross said in his statement: "I am deeply sorry and greatly regret the upset and distress that my juvenile and thoughtless remarks on the Russell Brand show have caused."

He said he had not issued a statement before because he had intended to apologise "to all those offended" on his Friday night chat show.

"However, it was a stupid error of judgement on my part and I offer a full apology," it added.

Sachs said he was "not surprised" by the BBC's suspension of the pair but added: "I am not going to take it anywhere. I'm not out for revenge."

Dylan Hayward

--82.37.245.25 (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Guests
Is it necessary to have a long list of guests? I think we should just have the more notable guests listed.--TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 09:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah i think the list should only include more internationally known people. Bencey (talk) 00:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I still think the list is too long, it will just get bigger every time a guest is on the show. --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 02:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Controversies
Is urinating into a paper cup live on air controversial? I don't think so.--TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 09:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed Bencey (talk) 00:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge Russell Brand prank calls row
I know that article has already been through an AFD, but I think it should be merged to this article. While it has generated a lot of news commentary, all that has really happened is two people have made "prank calls" to someone else and have been suspended by their employer. If that other article is kept, there is a risk of it turning into a great long timeline, with no proper structure and lots of synthesis. I'd rather see it merged here while the BBC/Ofcom investigation happens, and perhaps recreated if the result of the investigation has wider consequences for Brand, Ross and the BBC. Bradley0110 (talk) 11:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd say be bold and merge already, then redirect the separated page. --Blowdart | talk 11:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The BBC/Ofcom investigation will only take a week, according to ITV News. The Prime Minister has even commented on this, that rarely happens in British celebrity news stories. I think we should keep it here, there isn't much need to move it somewhere else then recreate. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 13:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with keeping this article separate for the time being, after all it involves at least five other articles that we can try to protect by diverting stuff here. If this does result in major changes at the BBC then it may need keeping long term, I suspect at current rates it could be one of the biggest complaints bags they've ever had, but at a current 18,000 it is only one third of Jerry Springer: The Opera and that incident does not have its own article.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  13:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I should probably point out that as none of my original concerns are valid anymore, I withdraw my merge proposal! :-) Bradley0110 (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Viddycasts
The article states that viddycast #12 was removed from the BBC website because it referenced the Andrew Sachs controversy, but viddycast #12 was actually related to the show broadcast on the 20th September 2008, a month before said incident even occurred. I think the confusion is due to the fact that Simon Amstell was the guest on that show - as well as Russell's final show on the 25th October 2008 - and also because uploads of of viddycast #12 to YouTube have curiously been removed at the request of Vanity Projects (Russell's own production company) - possibly as it features Jonathan Ross, even though he didn't actually appear on the show that week.

As far as I can tell, viddycast #16 featuring Jonathan Ross is the final one, and presumably the one that was pulled. Conrad1on (talk) 12:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)