== Idiot, resentment BBC revolt == 

 Not enough is addressed in the article about the disgust of BBC television and UK television tax payers towards this man and how he managed to negotiate himelf into a position where he is paid reportedly 17 million pounds over three years; also the fact he is a misogynist and about the current crisis involving the BBC, lack of confidence, broadcasting rights.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by     

 :Isn't it £18million? Besides, I'm not sure it's really relevant to say that much. A mention is probably enough.    

 ::I think he's well worth the money! He's hilarious. Bah! to the fools who say he's not. He was excercising his RIGHT to free speech. It was only joke anyway. I've read the transcript, all he said was "He f****d your grand daughter". Fingers crossed he comes back. 30,500 idiots spoiling the fun can't have it their own way y'know.     

 ::Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral so you can't condemn, or support, Ross's actions in the article. Besides, there is an article on the controversy, which is why is not covered so much here. And for the benefit of the poster above, Ross was not exercising his 'right to free speech', phone calls of that nature are not covered by free speech, they are in fact illegal under British law. The U.S. has far more freedom of speech than we have and yet those phoncalls would be illegal there too. If I made similar phonecalls to your mother, she could have me arrested and if I tried to defend my actions on freedom of speech grounds I'd be ridiculed for making such an absurd argument. If Ross has simply said it on air without leaving messages for Sachs, that would be totally different. And incidentally Jonathan Ross dosen't like freedom of speech at all when it comes to similar statements made about him and his family, he has spent the last couples of years issuing threats to the British media through his solicitors Schillings of London for publishing details about the private lives of his wife and children, something which ironically usually IS covered by freedom of speech so long as it's not libellous. Besides, there is actually a victim here and he didn't find it funny. If you disagree, kindly post your mothers/sisters/grandmothers phone number up here for us and we'll see if they find it funny.    

 :::Under British law prank calls are not illegal. I thought due to the hype of the media you of all people might have heard it. It is his right to free speech. It a harmless joke, people make fun of each other all the time. And furthermore you can't tell me what to do, I do support him, in the words of Jimmy Carr Ross is an valuable national treasure. When all the things came out about the Muhammed cartoon controversy many people didn't find that funny but it was covered under a blankett of "free speech", the cartoon stated all Muslims are following a terrorist - something which many Muslims did not find amusing. It was to them similar to the drawings of the "big nosed Jewish cartoons" in Germany in the 1900s.  So why is this different? I wholeheartedly support Ross and his freedom of speech.