I’m at a loss to know what to say about the Ross Brand debacle. Least said, soonest mended, I think.
However. It is worth pointing out that in yesterday’s Sunday Times, India Knight, in writing about the events (and having taken a pretty damning line on Georgina Bailey… who “signed with Max Clifford and obligingly posed en deshabille to emphasis the terrible ordeal Sachs had suffered…”) says:
“What lies at the centre of this sorry saga is misogyny…both men have made part of their living out of treating women – wives and mothers excluded – as though they were pieces of meat.”
But the same paper also carried this, from Roland White, in Atticus:
Further proof that Palin is a stimulating politician…
For those Republicans who haven’t managed to find a Sarah Palin blow-up doll, there is a new range of Sarah Palin condoms available…there are many vulgar jokes to be made about this, but in the new post-Russell Brand austerity, I feel a dignified silence would be better. Well, better at least than a dignified withdrawal.
Not much better is it? What was that about women being meat? And did someone complain about Russell Brand apologising then saying ‘but it was still funny…’.
No change there then.