is that nobody in the mainstream media is bright enough or imaginative enough or brave enough to break ranks and tell the true story.

It will probably happen this Sunday and most likely in the Observer or Indie - the way the Mail took a trivial incident heard by nobody and provoking two complaints and inflated it into a situation where heads rolled and the BBC was slightly damaged...

How? Why?

And why didn't any media outlet splash THIS story - when thousands of punters (judging by message boards), especially younger ones, saw through the righteous indignation?

Indeed, the GOOD thing about this entire tawdry episode is the gradual dawning amongst younger, intelligent observers about what is really going on.

I just hope they put two and two together and realise this inflation/exaggeration game has already infected both politics and the judicial system.

I'm just curious here, JK.

thousands of punters (judging by message boards)

Have I missed thousands of posts on this subject? Or have you other message boards I don't know of?

No, DD, on boards like the Radio One BBC board - overwhelmingly pro Brand - and the Guardian boards - a solid anti Mail element.

It is mainly the younger poster boards which seem to be spotting the truth here. The older posters go down the righteous indignation road (usually prompted by an element of "how dare they make lots of money when I don't?" - a truly potent ingredient for the dim).

Ah. Thanks for clarifying. You meant message boards you visit as opposed to your own message boards.

I think it's a bit unjust to suggest that everyone is basing their objection on money or on righteous indignation, or that they are dim. Some people genuinely have different standards and found these comments offensive. Younger people have grown with a different culture which includes Jackass, Happy Slapping and humour based on ridiculing others. However, my younger sister is only 22 and she, as I dsaid before, switched the show off because she found the prank "disgusting" (her word).

I recall that not so long ago some lads set a man on fire and filmed it, then posted the video on Youtube. Many other young people found it a highly amusing prank. They laugh when people have accidents, because that's what Jackass and other shows have taught them. So a phone call which might be offensive to the receiver (and, in this case, was) is great fun for them. Is it some loss of contact with reality?

It's worth repeating someone else's point that no newspaper could have repeated the words if the two 'celebs' had not first said them. I think Andrew Sachs is experienced enough to know that all of this will be in the papers and, if he's going to be offended, will avoid them. The media exists to report events. They cannot report an event without telling us what the event involves. They can't say, this guy murdered this guy but we can't print the details in case it offends the victim's family. That's unrealistic. We cannot properly assess a story unless we know the details. Though, actually, the phone calls had been heard by thousands on Youtube long before any papers printed transcripts. Most young people get their news off the net, so the papers don't have that much impact anyway.

Anyway, it's all in the hands of the BBC now. Once complaints are made by the public to a publicly funded broadcaster, they have no option but to take some kind of action.

I have been reading loads of FORUMS - try the DAVID ICKE FORUM which is one of the World's biggest FORUMS and they are overwhelmingly backing BRAND and ROSS and have seen through the "political spin" of this incident.

The SHEEPLE are awakening to the manipulation of the media by the DARK SPINMASTERS of our Government and friends.

The IRAQ WAR spin opened many young people's eyes and although the Over 50s still have not quite understood what is happening out there - the majority in the UK now are opposed to the Big Brother State and to these manipulations of our feelings by the media.

Brand and Ross are "Fall Guys" for the media machine - and yes JK should know all about this because he has also been a "Fall Guy" - each time small things are blown out of proportion to create false outrage.

This is a warning to BROWN and MANDY - you cant fool us anymore !!!!

If I used the telephone at work to leave abusive messages (either humourous or not) on an ex's answerphone, I'd almost certainly get sacked. It would be instant dismissal.

The truly frightening thing about the Brand/Ross silliness...it just wasn't funny...or edgy...or modern. Just 2 desperate smug old blokes trying to get a laugh, with no talent...just big heads, - suck on that, you lot! Tell you what - I'll ring up Jonathon Ross's mum, tell her my son is shagging his daughter (if hes got one..) and if she wants a threesome - see, I can be 'outrageous' too - but i won't get

Well Alan, I would be very surprised if somebody has not tried the stunt you suggest already.

To the best of my memory, I have only had 2 prank calls to me.
The first one was "How much is it to book Madonna from you?"
The second one was, the same voice asking if they could book BB King, on that one they fell completely flat on their face, as one of my mates was in his band at the time and I had the details to hand.

As I think , we close this subject now, lets just put the subject into the "timewaster phone call" category also.

Alan; it's not truly frightening that a gag isn't funny; it happens all the time. My point was that it wasn't aimed at me, you or the millions of others who don't find Brand that amusing so don't listen to the show.

As for Ross earning money, I cannot understand why anyone ever resents anybody making money. If someone is willing to pay, that's fine by me. I wouldn't pay him that but I'm not running a TV company.

i am agreeing with you, JK - i can't see the fuss - theres a lot more worthwhile things to debate...my problem is that i don't think they are as funny, edgy, cutting edge as people give 'em credit for - its all a bit 6th form to me...a place i left a long time ago!

& I don't resent J Ross making money - i just resent the fact that I'm not...lol!

If you're really Shearer, you're making far more than me.

And you ought to be Manager at Newcastle.

On the issue of Ross's wages, I think the main objection people have is that this is money from a publicly funded company which claims it has no money to make decent new programmes. If he was being paid 6m a year by a private company then it wouldn't be a problem. People are saying they don't pay the licence fee to have so much of it go into the pocket of one person, whoever that might be.

I'd like to believe people are that sensible Al but fear it is simple envy.

yes i am really him...but manage Newcastle?? - thats a bit of a poison chalice isn't it?...bit like winning the X Factor - failure follows...(except will young & leona, i suppose..!!)

and 'paid more than you'?? - i don't get much for making a few obvious comments on Match of the Day (eg 'Rory Delap's throw ins - he can throw them high in the air - or straight...like an arrow...!!') - anyway, most of the BBC budget is spent on a the wages of a certain foppish presenter with a puerile joke book and a worse dress sense - (actually, i quite like him really...and his wife...)

Is the reaction against the Brand/Ross phone call support for "Manuel"?

It hasn't come up much among the people I know but when it has their objection is not Ross is overpaid or the call was childish but more sympathy for a character Sachs once played.

I think its partly that - if it had been a call to Jeffrey Archer, or Peter Mandelson or someone of that 'reputation',rather than a well loved british actor, the reaction may not have been as indignant....

but its mainly 'cos society is full of sheep that don't think for themselves and the media and politicians will manipulate this in order to increase sales/gain votes at the expense of anyone they have it in for....ask JK (and plenty of others...)

My reaction would have been the same.

btw I'm really Kevin Keegan
(no, I really am ... not!)