egafd.com

Sir Terence of the Wogan is quoted in newspapers and online today as saying that Jonathan Ross's reputation is so damaged that he may never bounce back from this and is likely to never res-erect his TV and radio career. If he was a bit younger he could start again doing late-night stuff on Channel 4 or somewhere, but a man who is 47 years old I don't think could be re-employed to host whacky late-night stuff - a la Justin Lee Collins, the bloke from 'Buzzcocks', etc - they are much younger than him. Although Virgin Radio often employs people who have fallen out with the BBC, like they did with Chris Evans back in the 1990's.

This could also have bigger implications for his life than some may think. People always assume that if you are very rich then you will be ok whatever happens because you have your reserves to fall back on, but if his numerous homes and cars are all on the never-never and he is relying on his huge income to sustain the large mortgages he has, then things will start to go downhill fast for him. I mean, he is losing ?1.5m over his 3 month suspension and how can anyone lose that and it not affect them? Do other people think he is now finished as Wogan said? And do people think this could all lead to quite serious effects on his private life - financially speaking? (By the way if you have not yet heard Ross and Brand phoning Andrew Sachs's answerphone, the full unedited 19 minutes of it are on YouTube).

Tricky one to call. Ross has (or had, rather) two prominent TV shows plus his radio work all for the BBC. Ditching him completely creates a hole that'll be tricky to fill. But it does highlight a worry for them. For all their self-congratulation of recent years, they've not been nurturing talent quite to the degree that takes such losses into account.

Personally, I think they'll have him back, albeit in fairly neutered but still fairly characteristic form. Rather like Chris Evans on R2 at the moment, or Stephen Fry confining himself to cuddly, tweedy Uncle Stephen after the Cell Mates fiasco. I may be wrong of course.

And Brand - who cares? It was only media luvvies who foamed over this tabloid misogynist, never really the public.

This whole episode (and all subsequent results thereof) has been caused by the reaction & coverage of the Daily Mail and it's small-minded curtain-twitching readership.
Brand was always destined to fall on his sword but will rise again, Woss needed bringing a peg or two maybe but is still an entertaining and engaging presenter unlike much of the dross around these days. Radio 2 have lost an excellent controller and it's listeners will lose out. All because of the Daily Mail idiots. If their antics were so fucking offensive (despite having by then only attracted minimal complaints) isn't printing the whole debacle somewhat immoral?
I just hope the reactive clowns at the BBC have something more up their sleeves to give the license payers on a friday evening than repeats of films that have been shown time & time again (unlike last night).

Never liked Ross since he sat in for Wogan in the 90s

Well i understand Jonathan found this message on his answer phone

Dear Jonathan,
I have just f****** your daughter.
No regrets
Signed,
Gary Glitter

Shame it wasn't Wogan then !

swampthing wrote:

> say what you like about ross

Ok then. Ross is a useless cunt. Will that do?

I agree that Wogan insisted on being paid to present CIN. Not sure how much stuff Ross did for free though.