Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Geogina Baillies sell out to the sun

648 replies

ssummers · 30/10/2008 09:10

www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1872523.ece

Doesnt this sort of stink of hypercritism? when she said I wont comment until I speak to my 'agent' - was what she meant - I could make some money out of this - I know if every time I speak I have The Sun logo above my head I will bask in the glory?

Isnt talking about how rubbish RB is in bed stooping to the very level that we are accusing RB of? Will RBs granfather not have to read this article and will they not be upset? Sachs has been very dignified about the whole inccident though it has to be said.

OP posts:
beaniescreamyb · 30/10/2008 11:16

I just listened to his (Brand's) apology. I think it's great. He says he hadn't made a publlic apology before as he didn't want it to be seen as him "apologising for the reaction to the situation rather than to the situation itself" and that he hadn't apologised personally to Georgina yet as he was "Embarrassed and thought he might make it worse"

beaniescreamyb · 30/10/2008 11:18

I like this

skyatnight · 30/10/2008 11:26

Does JR (I keep thinking of Dallas!) work solely for the BBC. That might explain why he would not resign. Whereas RB has fingers in several pies (ewww!) BBC don't want to lose JR as they'd have a gap in their schedule.

I would not be surprised if the whole thing was conceived as a publicity stunt. Georgina wants to promote her career, JR and RB have books out, JR wants sustain his career by being in with the youth market, RB needs shock publicity to perpetuate his career and promote his films, and was Andrew Sachs going to be on the show because he has something to promote (and was going to do a favour for his gd at the same time?)

Anyway, it has all got out of hand (bit of chaos theory going on) and, regardless of the above, it was all offensive and in poor taste and shouldn't have been broadcast. It was not 'edgy', it was just vile, puerile, rubbish.

I agree with the theories that we don't want to see 'Manuel' hurt. And I agree that the public (mainly those above the age of 30) is fed up of all the economic woes, and the lack of personal power to change anything, and has been spoiling for a fight. Plus the element of how easy it is to complain to the BBC now via the internet.

dittany · 30/10/2008 11:44

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

morningpaper · 30/10/2008 11:51

it pisses me off a bit that it might lead to a narrower definintion of what is allowed to pass as humour on radio and tv.

agree

dittany · 30/10/2008 11:59

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MendedKnee · 30/10/2008 12:14

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

morningpaper · 30/10/2008 12:18

Well yes but you can get fired for making a suggestive joke

It is all about context - they don't work for British Gas

(they might do next week of course)

MendedKnee · 30/10/2008 12:23

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

littleducks · 30/10/2008 12:25

oh she is obv a mumsnetter, someone said on the other thread she should have just come out and said, "I slept with RB but he was rubbish"

bit late in the day now

skyatnight · 30/10/2008 12:32

littleducks

I doubt she is a mumsnetter. she has no kids for a start. And she's not a journo looking for inspiration for some trite piece in a national newspaper. And she's too busy being a Satanic Slut. Honestly you couldn't make it up.

So now she is being blamed for not kiss-and-telling sooner? Or maybe she was just clever and waited until he got more famous, was on the BBC and until her gf was on his show, to kiss and tell? Sensible girl. She knows how to wait for her investments to mature.

MendedKnee · 30/10/2008 12:35

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

izyboy · 30/10/2008 12:36

Its all Rhuuuubarb I tell you! Silly, silly, silly. However unfortunately it has now become A MATTER OF PUBLIC CONCERN!!! I really dont want a Mary Whitehouse style blanket ban on swearing, 'alternative' humour and whatever.

skyatnight · 30/10/2008 12:40

But comedy does need to be funny.

Come on Izyboy. You know you are a closet Krankies/Cannon&Ball fan really?

izyboy · 30/10/2008 12:41

ooh I could crush a grape - need I say more

onebatmotherofNormanBates · 30/10/2008 12:41

I know this probably belongs on the earlier thread but it got filled up by the time I got back so..

I wanted to make the point that anyone who uses the 'she's a burlesque dancer, she's no Miss Innocent' line to downplay the damage that has been done to Georgina, is effectively using the same logic as 'she was known to be promiscuous' to downplay rape.

No-one has said this explicitly, but several have sailed perilously close, even if they hastily qualify it with 'Oh, I'm not excusing what RB and JR did'.

Well, actually, you are.

Consent, in both cases, is not given as a blanket permission. Because she consented to sex with RB (normally considered a private act) does not mean that she consented to having that fact made known to either her GF or the world.

A useful comparison would be with a woman who consents to have sex with a man whom she loves, likes, or finds attractive, only to discover that his friends have been hiding in the wardrobe watching, and either wanking or laughing.

Similarly, Georgina's subsequent (and to me rather distasteful but understandable) decision to tell all has no bearing whatsoever on her position in this affair.

She is still the victim, however she behaves after the fact. Her complicity now in this ludicrous frenzy is NOT retroactive:
she was not complicit then, which is all that should matter.

May I also remind those who refuse to see misogyny at work here, that one of the lines sung into Sach's answering-machine was:

"I had sex with your granddaughter.
But it was consensual and she wasn't menstrual."

For me this is the crux of it, and reveals the misogyny which underlies the whole episode. Brand's fear of/disgust at the menstruating female body indicates his fear of/contempt for women - since for misogynists a woman is her body. It is effectively a public expression of his contempt for Georgina, for being disgustingly female.

And while we personally do not think like this, we know that much of culture does (hence 'feminine hygiene').

For this reason, I doubt that there is a single one of us who would not feel ourselves abused, were the image of us having sex whilst menstruating to be forced into the public consciousness in this manner (because of course although he says she wasn't 'menstrual', that assertion both contains and articulates the possibility that she was).

It reminded me of the time that a whole crowd of pissed rugby fans got onto my train and sang song after woman-hating song, almost all of which involved soemthing about menstruation and ended with the woman being debased in some way. Most of the other passengers were female.

It was incredibly upsetting and humiliating, but I had two revelations:

The first was 'fuck, your type of man really hates us, don't you'.

The second was 'fuck, you're not accidentally doing this in front of women themselves because you're pissed at all, are you? The whole point is to - occasionally - go public with your contempt, to make us anxious and afraid and to remind us that you can.

That's what I think RB and JR were doing - though I doubt that they were even conscious of it. And I don't, of course, meaning reminding Georgina as an individual - I mean they were reminding us ALL. Just as when JR habitually talks about the tits of whichever smart female guest he has on his talk show that week, he is reminding us all that ultimately, that's what we are to him and the rest of misogynist culture - a pair of tits.

Disclaimer: I know that many men do not feel like this; but the ones that do, really do - and our culture tends to reflect their needs and beliefs.

skyatnight · 30/10/2008 12:46

I agree with a lot of what you have said OneBat, particularly about consent. And it was misogyny, whichever way anyone tries to dress it up. For me, the freedom of speech argument is spurious in this case.

Ivegotaheadache · 30/10/2008 12:46

This has all got utterly ridiculous. Why RB has had to resign is beyond me this was a PRE RECORDED show. Yes they made an offensive phone call to AS, but had the bbc decided to at least edit the show a bit this would never have got out, RB and JR and bbc could have apologised to AS in private - job done.

If RB and JR had said these things on live radio, then yes I could understand the resigning and suspensions.

Then The GD is selling her story to the bloody Sun. Couldn't she have just issued a statement or something?

The whole thing has gone way OTT, even the complaints is a joke. There weren't that many complaints just after the show was broadcast, funny how the number of complaints rose as the story got bigger an dbigger in the media.

izyboy · 30/10/2008 12:47

So do you think there are subjects that cannot be used for comedic purpose onebat?

dittany · 30/10/2008 12:47

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

izyboy · 30/10/2008 12:50

I think also onebat you are missing the point a little bit - in that some of us were merely speculating that there may be more going on behind this story than meets the eye.

I still stand by the fact that if you call your group Satanic Sluts it is safe for the public to assume that you are courting controversy.

morningpaper · 30/10/2008 12:51

Feel free to go ahead and deconstruct their act as much as you like. But comparing a comedy act to rape is utter nonsense. It didn't involve consent: but nor does nicking my credt card details. You can't compare that with rape either.

The evidence suggests she was not very upset (she sold semi-naked pictures of herself to the tabloids the next day). The evidence suggests that her grandfather was not very upset (he was happy to appear on the next show and was happy for the producer to 'see what he could do' about editing the conversation). The evidence suggests that the audience were not upset (2 complaints at the time).

It was a comedy act that possibly went a bit far and was then taken up as a media story because it is more interesting than poring over the FTSE all day. That's all this was. Don't pretend it was the equivalent to the rape of a woman.

izyboy · 30/10/2008 12:54

absolutely morning paper

skyatnight · 30/10/2008 12:55

So what if she courts controversy. What has that got to do with anything? Have you read what OneBat and Dittany have written?

I agree that the managers at the BBC need a rocket up their arses for letting this go through. But the core idea for the prank was very bad, it was not just a case of needing a little editing. And who came up with the idea.

When your stars' egos are threatening to engulf the planet, and like little naughty boys they are testing the limits of their own puerile depravity, when they have lost all connection with public opinion and reality, reign them in!!

It's official. I am Mary Whitehouse II.

dittany · 30/10/2008 12:56

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.