09 May 2009

Qué?


Andrew Sachs writes in the Daily Mail under the heading, "Andrew Sachs: Ross and Brand have ripped my family apart."

The article refers to an incident where lewd messages where left on Sach's answer 'phone by Ross and Brand during a BBC radio programme. Sachs tells us that "... he's deeply upset" and alludes to the vicarious liability of the BBC, "'I didn't understand it. It shouldn't have happened,' he says. 'I really don't know why the BBC ever let it go out.'"

Curiously, Sachs writes, "'I've written to her several times [his grand daughter, the subject of the lewd telephone calls] but got no reply. Well, not until a couple of days ago. She wrote to say she wants to make amends in some way, so I'll be responding to that." Does this mean that there was collusion between Ross, Brand and Sach's granddaughter; ie that she was complicit in the stunt?

Ross's liabilities have been outlined; it looks like Sachs has a legal remedy.

If Sachs took legal action, would it expose some sort of conspiracy by Ross, Brand and the grand daughter, to use the BBC to raise the profile of Sach's grand daughter?

No comments:

Post a Comment