3 ms·

Conveniently you missed this part (I guess it was not an accident): Brand: [singing…] I'd like to apologise for the terrible attacks, Andrew Sachs, I would lik

Conveniently you missed this part (I guess it was not an accident): Brand: [singing…] I'd like to apologise for the terrible attacks, Andrew Sachs, I would like to show contrition to the max, Andrew Sachs. I would like to create world peace, between the yellow, white and blacks, Andrew Sachs, Andrew Sachs. I said something I didn't have oughta, like I had sex with your granddaughter. But it was consensual and she wasn't menstrual, it was consensual lovely sex. It was full of respect I sent her a text, I've asked her to marry me, Andrew Sachs … So not only did he call up an old man saying he had sex with his grand-daughter, he made a gag about her not being on her period and it being consensual. Why are you trying to defend this incredibly gross and nasty person?

akolbe 3y ago
This was a prerecorded programme and the BBC chose to air it. "Gross and nasty" or not, this was viewed as mainstream entertainment by the BBC's bosses fifteen years ago. Marina Hyde has a good piece in today's Guardian about this particular programme and how things have changed: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/sep/19/brave-victims-russell-brand-misogyny-deserve-full-support https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/sep/19/brave-... I remember this episode, and I remember other stuff Brand did in the early noughties. Personally, I always thought Brand was a git. But if people claim Brand did or said stuff he didn't do or say, I think it ought to be pointed out. And if you can't see the implications of someone being deplatformed in this way ostensibly because of something they allegedly did fifteen or twenty years ago then I cannot help you. The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all. —H. L. Mencken Google is not strictly speaking a lawmaker, but they have comparable impact.

akolbe 3y ago

This was a prerecorded programme and the BBC chose to air it. "Gross and nasty" or not, this was viewed as mainstream entertainment by the BBC's bosses fifteen years ago. Marina Hyde has a good piece in today's Guardian about this particular programme and how things have changed: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/sep/19/brave-victims-russell-brand-misogyny-deserve-full-support https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/sep/19/brave-... I remember this episode, and I remember other stuff Brand did in the early noughties. Personally, I always thought Brand was a git. But if people claim Brand did or said stuff he didn't do or say, I think it ought to be pointed out. And if you can't see the implications of someone being deplatformed in this way ostensibly because of something they allegedly did fifteen or twenty years ago then I cannot help you. The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all. —H. L. Mencken Google is not strictly speaking a lawmaker, but they have comparable impact.