I just think his comments were not thought out - he should not get castrated for voicing an opinion - that's all it was. Most of us disagree with the bloke - if anything, surely if anyone with depression was listening would make them think twice about doing anything dangerous based on what he was saying...?
In my opinion its no different from the TalkSport breakfast show constantly glamourising alcohol, which by far is Britain's biggest drug problem - especially when they're all up at Ascot during the racing season, talking up drinking whiskeys at 8 in the morning.
Would your employer like you making those comments at work?
If he wants to make those comments do it after work in your own time not in your employers.
I just think his comments were not thought out - he should not get castrated for voicing an opinion - that's all it was. Most of us disagree with the bloke - if anything, surely if anyone with depression was listening would make them think twice about doing anything dangerous based on what he was saying...?
In my opinion its no different from the TalkSport breakfast show constantly glamourising alcohol, which by far is Britain's biggest drug problem - especially when they're all up at Ascot during the racing season, talking up drinking whiskeys at 8 in the morning.
It is not always appropriate (and at times may be illegal) to voice ones opinion.
We do not have complete freedom of speech in this country for very good reasons and long may that continue.
So nothing that could possible upset a depressed person and tip them over the edge should be heard on a radio station, seen on television, seen in a cinema?
That would probably leave only the Chuckle Brothers on television.
Impossible to do!
Life goes on regardless of what happens in this often cruel world!
I urge people to refer the matter to Ofcom for them to consider if any guidelines have been breached by Brazil and Allen "speaking their minds".
I'm sure that we can all agree that everything should be done to prevent further upset to those already suffering because of depression and/or prevent another tragedy.
You said he thought he was above these guidelines and that he had clearly breached said guidelines.
So nothing that could possible upset a depressed person and tip them over the edge should be heard on a radio station, seen on television, seen in a cinema?
That would probably leave only the Chuckle Brothers on television.
Impossible to do!
Life goes on regardless of what happens in this often cruel world!
Depends on what is said what if he had said "Rape is a woman's fault" or "You should be able to carry a knife and stab someone if you get attacked", "or people with AIDS it's their own fault".
You cannot just say what you want on a radio show, Brazil is a radio veteran he should know what he can and cannot say and what will cause offence.
There is a school of thought that those who commit suicide are selfish.
He is obviously one of those. He is entitled to his views and di no wrong as far as I am concerned.
There is a school of thought that those who commit suicide are selfish.
He is obviously one of those. He is entitled to his views and di no wrong as far as I am concerned.
I don't agree with him though.
agreed,people need to realise there is a huge difference between doing something "wrong" and doing something they "disagree" with.
There is a school of thought that those who commit suicide are selfish.
He is obviously one of those. He is entitled to his views and di no wrong as far as I am concerned.
I don't agree with him though.
He did it on live national radio that is problem I have he used his work to put forward his views, he is entitled to his view in his own time not misuse his job to put his views forward, imagine if Fiona Bruce or Mark Austin while reading the news suddenly gave their opinions on it, they wouldn't because they are doing a job.
He did it on live national radio that is problem I have he used his work to put forward his views, he is entitled to his view in his own time not misuse his job to put his views forward, imagine if Fiona Bruce or Mark Austin while reading the news suddenly gave their opinions on it, they wouldn't because they are doing a job.
That's completely different because news bulletins have a separate section of the code requiring them to be impartial. However:
Presenters and reporters (with the exception of news presenters and reporters in news programmes), presenters of "personal view" or "authored" programmes or items, and chairs of discussion programmes may express their own views on matters of political or industrial controversy or matters relating to current public policy. However, alternative viewpoints must be adequately represented either in the programme,
He did it on live national radio that is problem I have he used his work to put forward his views, he is entitled to his view in his own time not misuse his job to put his views forward, imagine if Fiona Bruce or Mark Austin while reading the news suddenly gave their opinions on it, they wouldn't because they are doing a job.
You have used two entirely different scenarios.
News readers whilst reading the news do not give their own views. (in this country anyway)
Alan Brazil is the host of a talk show, he is not a news reader. He is there as part of his employment to discuss topics and give his opinion on them.
You have used two entirely different scenarios.
News readers whilst reading the news do not give their own views. (in this country anyway)
Alan Brazil is a DJ, the host of a talk show, he is not a news reader. He is there as part of his employment to discuss topics and give his opinion on them.
Sports talk host as far as I am aware and he isn't a DJ he doesn't play records he is a radio presenter.
Was an alternative point of view put across?
I said this in early posts that he must be able to debate both sides of the argument in his show.
Well, the fat drink-driving oaf is still employed by that godforsaken radio station. Strange that he hasn't gone for his remarks, yet TalkSport had no hesitation in sacking him for not turning up for his show a few years ago after he'd been at the Cheltenham Festival.
I'd come out like what others have said and say I've lost all respect for him, but in all honesty, I never had any respect for him anyway. He was a crap footballer, he works on a crap radio station, and he can't distinguish the difference between drunk and sober, hence why he pleaded not guilty in court despite being being over twice the legal limit and also claimed he was treated worse than a paedophile.
I said this in early posts that he must be able to debate both sides of the argument in his show.
Sports or not, he is employed to give his opinion and the few times I have caught his show they often dip into the news of the day.
Why must an alternative point of view be put across it was not a political debate? The other guy seemed to have a different point of view.
In what way to you think the comparison between a talk show host, employed to give his opinion (amongst other things) and a Newsreader that is not, is a credible comparison?
but it's difficult to see which one has been breached in this case, particularly as the discussion was balanced by comments from the other host.
I am of the opinion that the guidelines have been breached, whilst others disagree. That's why I have referred the matter to an authoritive third party for an independent decision.
We can discuss this until the cows come home, but it is essentially a matter for the regulator.
I also think it's worth highlighting the seriousness of this subject matter.
We aren't discussing which flavour crisps taste the best, we are discussing something that has had a profound and life changing affect on many, many people regarding potentially life or death situations- literally.
Sports or not, he is employed to give his opinion and the few times I have caught his show they often dip into the news of the day.
Why must an alternative point of view be put across it was not a political debate? The other guy seemed to have a different point of view.
In what way to you think the comparison between a talk show host, employed to give his opinion (amongst other things) and a Newsreader that is not, is a credible comparison?
What if Eamonn Holmes had said it on Sky during the newspaper review I was thinking as he often gives his opinion.
So nothing that could possible upset a depressed person and tip them over the edge should be heard on a radio station, seen on television, seen in a cinema?
That would probably leave only the Chuckle Brothers on television.
Impossible to do!
Life goes on regardless of what happens in this often cruel world!
These guidelines etc relate to the specific reporting/discussion of suicide, not programmes as a whole.
What if Eamonn Holmes had said it on Sky during the newspaper review I was thinking as he often gives his opinion.
Then he would be giving his opinion and in the context of such a programme he would be within his right to give that opinion.
You have moved from Newsreaders reading the news to newspaper reviews.:)
Why must an alternative point of view be put across it was not a political debate? The other guy seemed to have a different point of view.
In what way to you think the comparison between a talk show host, employed to give his opinion (amongst other things) and a Newsreader that is not, is a credible comparison?
Then he would be giving his opinion and in the context of such a programme he would be within his right to give that opinion.
You have moved from Newsreaders to newspaper reviews.
Why must an alternative point of view be put across it was not a political debate? The other guy seemed to have a different point of view.
In what way to you think the comparison between a talk show host, employed to give his opinion (amongst other things) and a Newsreader that is not, is a credible comparison?
I can't see what the fuss is about. I agree with all that was said by Alan Brazil- this was a very selfish act, with little thought given to the family left behind or the person who found the body.
You have changed the context of your original point.
Newspaper reviews are not a newsreader reading the news.
Remember
But he reads the stories at the top of the hour so it would be wrong if he is being impartial then goes to a newspaper review and makes comments which might be classed as controversial....anyway Brazil is employed to discuss sport not the news, Talksport gave up on news and current affairs years ago.
I can't see what the fuss is about. I agree with all that was said by Alan Brazil- this was a very selfish act, with little thought given to the family left behind or the person who found the body.
You obviously have never been in such depression that you cannot cope anymore and you believe your wife and children are better off without you and their lives would be better if you were dead.
You have never been so low you think everyone hates you and think people are laughing at you in the street.
If you had you wouldn't think that but you are entitled to the opinion you have given.
I am of the opinion that the guidelines have been breached, whilst others disagree. That's why I have referred the matter to an authoritive third party for an independent decision.
We can discuss this until the cows come home, but it is essentially a matter for the regulator.
I also think it's worth highlighting the seriousness of this subject matter.
We aren't discussing which flavour crisps taste the best, we are discussing something that has had a profound and life changing affect on many, many people regarding potentially life or death situations- literally.
Nothing will happen, he simply gave his view that he has no sympathy, what is wrong with that?
But he reads the stories at the top of the hour so it would be wrong if he is being impartial then goes to a newspaper review and makes comments which might be classed as controversial....anyway Brazil is employed to discuss sport not the news, Talksport gave up on news and current affairs years ago.
And newsreaders whilst reading the news, as in top of the hour news headlines do not give their opinion. They do however at times give an opinion whist presenting newspaper reviews. And so what? What does that have to do with a commercial radio broadcaster that is not a newsreader?
Alan Brazil is the host of a talk show, a predominantly sports talk show that sometimes discusses topics of the day.
How do you know he is employed JUST to discuss sports? I take it every time he discusses something other than sports he is in breach of his contract?
Comments
Would your employer like you making those comments at work?
If he wants to make those comments do it after work in your own time not in your employers.
It is not always appropriate (and at times may be illegal) to voice ones opinion.
We do not have complete freedom of speech in this country for very good reasons and long may that continue.
That would probably leave only the Chuckle Brothers on television.
Impossible to do!
Life goes on regardless of what happens in this often cruel world!
You said he thought he was above these guidelines and that he had clearly breached said guidelines.
What guidelines did he breach?
The guidelines are here:
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/broadcast/831190/section2.pdf
but it's difficult to see which one has been breached in this case, particularly as the discussion was balanced by comments from the other host.
Depends on what is said what if he had said "Rape is a woman's fault" or "You should be able to carry a knife and stab someone if you get attacked", "or people with AIDS it's their own fault".
You cannot just say what you want on a radio show, Brazil is a radio veteran he should know what he can and cannot say and what will cause offence.
There is a school of thought that those who commit suicide are selfish.
He is obviously one of those. He is entitled to his views and di no wrong as far as I am concerned.
I don't agree with him though.
agreed,people need to realise there is a huge difference between doing something "wrong" and doing something they "disagree" with.
He did it on live national radio that is problem I have he used his work to put forward his views, he is entitled to his view in his own time not misuse his job to put his views forward, imagine if Fiona Bruce or Mark Austin while reading the news suddenly gave their opinions on it, they wouldn't because they are doing a job.
That's completely different because news bulletins have a separate section of the code requiring them to be impartial. However:
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code/impartiality/
You have used two entirely different scenarios.
News readers whilst reading the news do not give their own views. (in this country anyway)
Alan Brazil is the host of a talk show, he is not a news reader. He is there as part of his employment to discuss topics and give his opinion on them.
Sports talk host as far as I am aware and he isn't a DJ he doesn't play records he is a radio presenter.
Was an alternative point of view put across?
I said this in early posts that he must be able to debate both sides of the argument in his show.
I'd come out like what others have said and say I've lost all respect for him, but in all honesty, I never had any respect for him anyway. He was a crap footballer, he works on a crap radio station, and he can't distinguish the difference between drunk and sober, hence why he pleaded not guilty in court despite being being over twice the legal limit and also claimed he was treated worse than a paedophile.
The guy is a grade A asshat.
Sports or not, he is employed to give his opinion and the few times I have caught his show they often dip into the news of the day.
Why must an alternative point of view be put across it was not a political debate? The other guy seemed to have a different point of view.
In what way to you think the comparison between a talk show host, employed to give his opinion (amongst other things) and a Newsreader that is not, is a credible comparison?
I am of the opinion that the guidelines have been breached, whilst others disagree. That's why I have referred the matter to an authoritive third party for an independent decision.
We can discuss this until the cows come home, but it is essentially a matter for the regulator.
I also think it's worth highlighting the seriousness of this subject matter.
We aren't discussing which flavour crisps taste the best, we are discussing something that has had a profound and life changing affect on many, many people regarding potentially life or death situations- literally.
What if Eamonn Holmes had said it on Sky during the newspaper review I was thinking as he often gives his opinion.
These guidelines etc relate to the specific reporting/discussion of suicide, not programmes as a whole.
Then he would be giving his opinion and in the context of such a programme he would be within his right to give that opinion.
You have moved from Newsreaders reading the news to newspaper reviews.:)
Why must an alternative point of view be put across it was not a political debate? The other guy seemed to have a different point of view.
In what way to you think the comparison between a talk show host, employed to give his opinion (amongst other things) and a Newsreader that is not, is a credible comparison?
You have changed the context of your original point.
Newspaper reviews are not a newsreader reading the news.
Remember
But he reads the stories at the top of the hour so it would be wrong if he is being impartial then goes to a newspaper review and makes comments which might be classed as controversial....anyway Brazil is employed to discuss sport not the news, Talksport gave up on news and current affairs years ago.
You obviously have never been in such depression that you cannot cope anymore and you believe your wife and children are better off without you and their lives would be better if you were dead.
You have never been so low you think everyone hates you and think people are laughing at you in the street.
If you had you wouldn't think that but you are entitled to the opinion you have given.
Nothing will happen, he simply gave his view that he has no sympathy, what is wrong with that?
And newsreaders whilst reading the news, as in top of the hour news headlines do not give their opinion. They do however at times give an opinion whist presenting newspaper reviews. And so what? What does that have to do with a commercial radio broadcaster that is not a newsreader?
Alan Brazil is the host of a talk show, a predominantly sports talk show that sometimes discusses topics of the day.
How do you know he is employed JUST to discuss sports? I take it every time he discusses something other than sports he is in breach of his contract?
Have I got that right?