Re: Russell Brand
Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2023 2:05 pm
Other way around for me. I was confused at the time about why this was supposed to be embarrassing to Sachs. But evidently Sachs was indeed publicly embarrassed, and hence that was where the BBC was going to insist an apology was directed. (After Brand had made himself rich on the story, he eventually apologised to Baillie and paid for her rehab. Guilty conscience, or derogatory rate of commission, or what?)Grumble wrote: Tue Sep 19, 2023 12:10 pmThis is a very good point and I’m ashamed that it didn’t occur to me.Fishnut wrote: Tue Sep 19, 2023 10:39 amI saw someone on twitter point out that Brand and Ross were made to apologise to Sachs, not to Baillie, even though it was her private sexual history that they had broadcast. All the media coverage I remember at the time was about how appalling it was to treat Sachs that way, nothing about how they treated Baillie.purplehaze wrote: Tue Sep 19, 2023 10:10 am When Sachsgate happened it just confirmed to me how revolting he was, Georgina Baillie suffered the most as a consequence.
But I wasn't very well tuned into people's feelings about such things, and have made quite a through horrible mistakes through ignorance and insensitivity over the years.
Trying to understand why people would see this as embarrassing to Sachs, then eventually it seemed to me to depend on a second piece of ages-old inequality/misogyny, that elders are supposed to protect women from that first piece of ages-old inequality/misogyny, being preyed upon by men, who will promise the earth but instead turn them into damaged goods. And Sachs accepted that and took on the failed protector position. But tell me if I've misunderstood.
If Sachs had refused to be embarrassed and called Brand out for being a predator and cad, and defended his granddaughter, I wonder what the public reaction would have been? But Brand probably knew well it was unlikely Sachs would see it like that.
