Contemplating the idea of crossing boundaries, Russell Brand once famously said, “There is no line. People create that line afterwards to mess with you.” And now, here we are, dealing with the aftermath.
Back in the day, many people were thrilled to be on what they believed was Russell’s side of the line. For a certain type of uncool man on the left, Russell Brand was a fascinating figure. You could see it in their faces whenever he was around, illuminated by the brief indulgence from a guy who probably would have bullied them in school. He was a sports columnist for the Guardian, and he even guest-edited the New Statesman. But the climax of this phase of Brand’s journey towards the alt-right was the feverish speculation about whether he would endorse Labour in the 2015 general election. In a filmed interview at his London flat, Labour leader Ed Miliband sought Brand’s approval, only to be met with Brand’s rhetoric about the lack of meaningful change in politics. Surprisingly, many still supported his political stance.
Personally, I had no interest in all that nonsense. But I can’t pat myself on the back either, because I got other things wrong. Today, I want to discuss an incident from that time known as Sachsgate. It’s a useful way to understand the current debates about who knew what when it comes to Brand. Unlike comedy rumors or backstage whispers, Sachsgate played out in public. The story dominated the headlines for weeks, overshadowing even the 2008 financial crisis.
Similar to the out-of-control bankers, Brand was the master of his own world. On one October evening, he recorded his Radio 2 show with co-host Jonathan Ross. Their plan was to have Andrew Sachs, known for his role as Manuel in Fawlty Towers, as a guest over the phone. Brand had previously been involved with Sachs’ granddaughter, Georgina Baillie. When Sachs didn’t answer the phone, Brand and Ross left messages on his voicemail. In the first message, Ross shouted, “He fucked your granddaughter.” Over the course of three more messages, they added even more disturbing content, including singing songs. Brand later revealed that Ross had asked him to edit out the calls from the broadcast, but Brand refused. The BBC aired it anyway. I assume you already know the rest.
Explaining the culture for women during the 2000s is difficult if you weren’t there. It was a bizarre and gross time, with instances like Britney Spears’ public breakdown. In 2008, even the then Lib-Dem leader Nick Clegg admitted to sleeping with up to 30 women in an interview with GQ.
Looking back now, with the benefit of hindsight, the way Sachsgate was portrayed is completely bizarre. On one side, you had those who defended the BBC, comedy, and free speech, and on the other, those who wanted their downfall. Fleet Street quickly divided into tribes, each assuming the other had ulterior motives. It was a time when our only culture wars were about things happening on the BBC. The reactions were polarized, with some people incensed and others thinking it was an overreaction.
When the recent Brand expose was published, I was transported back to that time. And with my 2023 perspective, alarm bells started ringing because I knew that I wouldn’t have focused on Georgina Baillie in my writing back then. I had a shaming suspicion that I treated it as a media story, and unfortunately, that was true. While I acknowledged that Ross and Brand were scumbags, my focus was on ridiculing the complaints about the Mail titles’ coverage without having heard the original broadcast. Looking back, I was being obtuse and it was unacceptable for the BBC to air such content.
Unfortunately, the tabloids pursuing the BBC got it wrong too by relentlessly slut-shaming Georgina Baillie. The entire affair was cast as an insult to Andrew Sachs, ignoring the harm done to Baillie. She faced blame and I couldn’t find a single column in any contemporaneous newspaper defending her. A year later, Baillie sold an interview and photoshoot to the Sun, in which she revealed the media frenzy had driven her to the brink of insanity. I am ashamed to say that my reaction was to tell her to stop talking about it.
Baillie descended into addiction and disappeared from the public eye, except for the Brand story that will forever be associated with her when people search her name. In a recent interview with the Mirror, she reiterated that her relationship with Brand had been consensual, but the radio prank and its aftermath were anything but. Brand capitalized on the incident during his standup tour, further humiliating her. To make matters worse, her grandfather didn’t speak to her for eight years. Brand eventually apologized and paid for her rehab. Baillie’s reflections on the situation were heartbreaking. She spent a decade blaming herself. That’s the reality of “the culture” we lived in.
I’m just one of many who got things wrong in how that story was covered and framed. If we’ve learned anything, it’s that we need to treat these newly uncovered stories better. The recent investigations by the Sunday Times, the Times, and Dispatches have set an example. As I’ve gotten older, I’ve become more aware of how we frame stories and the importance of putting the victims at the center. Tribalisim only hinders the truth and justice. The right side of the line is where the victims are.
Denial of responsibility! Vigour Times is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
