Monday, 3 November 2008

Brand, Ross, Atticus....

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.


Douglas Bruton said...

Do you not think sometimes that the world we live in is a bit mad? Did you see how much Ross will lose by his 3 month suspension? 1.5 million... I work very very hard and do good in the world and that's more than I would earn in 50 years... doesn't that seem just a little mad?

And if they get paid such mad figures, should we be surprised when they behave a little insanely and inanely?

It makes me mad (a different kind of mad) that this was allowed to happen.


Vanessa Gebbie said...

Ah but.

The world's turns thanks not to good, but entertainment and profit.

And apparently, entertainment is now foul-mouthed middle aged men trying to keep in with the young set, screeching sexually charged abuse at grandfathers.