Cowardly Russell Brand's insulted us all over again, say Sachs family Brand and Jonathan Ross targeted Melody's actor husband Andrew with stream of crude answerphone messages Pair made sexual insults about Sachses" granddaughter, Georgina, with whom Brand had had a relationship These remarks aired on Brand's Radio 2 show, provoking 42,000 complaints and devastating the Sachs family A letter of apology was the last thing Melody Sachs expected to receive from Russell Brand (above) A letter of apology was the last thing Melody Sachs expected to receive from Russell Brand. After all, it had been six years since the controversial comedian, together with Jonathan Ross, targeted her actor husband Andrew - famous for playing Manuel in Fawlty Towers - with a stream of crude answerphone messages. The pair made the most degrading sexual insults about the Sachses" granddaughter, Georgina, with whom Brand had had a relationship, and even cracked jokes about the young woman's menstrual cycle. These remarks aired on Brand's Radio 2 show, provoking 42,000 complaints and devastating the Sachs family. Andrew, 84, and Melody, 81, had doted on their granddaughter, yet the abusive calls sparked a rift which has still not fully healed. In the aftermath of the controversy, Brand sent flowers and a short letter by way of "apology" to the couple, a gesture they felt was inadequate. So when a thoughtfully-penned message dropped through the Sachs" letterbox earlier this year from the comedian, Melody and Andrew were deeply touched by Brand's apparent contrition. His suggestion that they could get in touch to further discuss the matter meant a great deal, and Melody duly attempted to reach out in forgiveness. Yet, several months on, she has been unable to make contact with Brand. Once more she feels betrayed. It's not as if Brand has slipped below the radar, either. Quite the opposite. Instead, in recent weeks Brand has been all over our TV screens promoting his new book Revolution, which claims to offer a radical solution to economic problems. From Start The Week to Newsnight, nowhere have we been spared his political spoutings. Here, we publish Russell Brand's letter to Mr and Mrs Sachs, and Melody's searing response... It had been six years since the controversial comedian, together with Jonathan Ross, targeted her actor husband Andrew (pictured with Melody) - famous for playing Manuel in Fawlty Towers - with a stream of crude answerphone messages What Brand wrote Dear Mr and Mrs Sachs, I am in recovery from drug and alcohol addiction. Part of my recovery is that I must make amends to anyone my behaviour has harmed. I owe you both an amends. (sic) I apologise to you for my wholly inappropriate behaviour in leaving lewd, disrespectful and hurtful messages on your answerphone. I apologise unreservedly for the distress, sadness and turbulence this has brought into your life. I apologise for the damage I have caused to your family relationships and for robbing you of your peace of mind. This behaviour and the consequences you have suffered as a result of my actions are unacceptable. This is not the man I want to be and I wholeheartedly apologise to you both. I am sorry too that it has taken so long for me to write to you expressing this sentiment to which the two of you are entitled. This ungracious act which has caused you such suffering is the type of behaviour that led me to drink and use drugs, and no longer has a place in my life. I am so sorry that it has so profoundly and negatively impacted on yours. I am sure the last thing on earth either of you want is any further contact with me, but if there is anything I have not addressed or that you feel would be helpful for you to express, or anything you would like me to do, then please don't hesitate to contact me. My sincere apologies for the hurt I have caused you and your family. Yours sincerely, Russell Brand and Ross made the most degrading sexual insults about the Sachses" granddaughter, Georgina, with whom Brand had had a relationship, and even cracked jokes about the young woman's menstrual cycle Mrs Sachs' reply Dear Russell, Andrew and I were surprised to receive your letter a few months ago. After all, it is now six years since you threw our lives into tumult when, goaded and abetted by your friend Jonathan Ross, you left deeply offensive messages on our answerphone. The damage and anguish you caused to our family were compounded when the BBC chose to broadcast these obscene messages on your Radio 2 show. The scale of its irresponsibility and stupidity, in our minds, almost matched yours. Nonetheless, both my husband and I were prepared to indulge you and read your letter, even though your apology, we both felt, was long overdue. And as we did so, we felt gratified by the apparent sincerity of your contrition. Despite the anguish you had caused us, we were prepared to give you a chance to wipe the slate clean. You told us you are in recovery from drug and alcohol addiction, and that part of your programme of rehabilitation required you to make amends to anyone who had been harmed by your behaviour in the past. Hence your decision to approach us. You went on to acknowledge the enormous anguish and distress you had inflicted, not only on Andrew and me, but on the rest of our family. We actually felt ourselves warm towards you. And then, pertinently - although you recognised we would be loath to accept your offer - you gave us the opportunity to contact you and talk to you. You will understand, no doubt, that Andrew and I agonised long and hard about whether to take up your offer. We talked about what you had written. And within a week or so of receiving your letter, we concluded your remorse was genuine, and between us we decided I should, in fact, be the one to get in touch with you. I confess that I was motivated by a glimmer of forgiveness towards you. I remember saying to my husband, "Maybe Russell Brand really is on the way to recovery." The other factor that spurred me to contact you was actually our shared experience. Because I, like you, understand about the curse of addiction. You may be surprised to know that for 37 years I have worked with recovering alcoholics. I know all about making amends for past hurts. So I was prepared to help you. And I wanted to do so because I know, first hand, how vital such support is when you are in the fragile, early stages of recovery. And I felt you could learn from our shared experience. Ignited by a small spark of fellow-feeling, I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt. Duly I telephoned you on the mobile number you had provided at the top of your letter. When I rang, you didn't answer, so I left my own message on your answerphone. It was generous in content and warm in tone. There was no rancour or recrimination. I just said how very pleased I was to hear that you were in recovery. After all, I wanted to support you. I know how tough the path to sobriety is. Andrew, 84, and Melody, 81, had doted on their granddaughter Georgina (above), yet the abusive calls sparked a rift which has still not fully healed Further, I made an offer that I believed to be both magnanimous and merciful. I told you I would personally support you. I said in my message, that if you were still in rehab, I would visit you; that I would love to come and see you in whichever unit you were in. I was prepared to persist. I phoned you again. And again. Most recently I called you earlier this month. And I continued to leave messages inviting you to meet me. Yet now, several weeks on, I have still heard nothing from you. Not a word. Just an empty, mocking silence. So what must we conclude, Andrew and I, as we look back on your promises, your pleas for atonement? I'm afraid we must infer the worst - that you were intent on insulting us further and that there was actually not a scintilla of sincerity in your request for our forgiveness, any more than there was in your offer to talk to us. If there had been, you would have extended me the basic courtesy of responding to my messages. I must also assume that you are a coward who has neither the courage to confront the consequences of his actions, nor the guts to meet us, the victims of your cruel prank. But you are not only running away from us, Russell, you are also fleeing from yourself. We feel doubly insulted because you traduced us, and then you duped us. You made us believe, for a fleeting moment, that you were actually sorry for the hurt you inflicted on us. Now I'm beginning to think that you did not even write to us of your own volition, but were told to do so as a condition of your rehabilitation But of course, I suppose we should have known: your remorse was a sham. You were going through the motions; just doing what was expected of you, and by merely saying sorry you expected absolution. Now I'm beginning to think that you did not even write to us of your own volition, but were told to do so as a condition of your rehabilitation. Your words - which we'd been prepared to accept at face value - now seem hollow and perfunctory. I fear you do not actually know the meaning of real repentance. To make amends for someone else's hurt you must feel genuine sorrow. You must, indeed, be prepared to speak to them about how you have caused offence; to engage with them and ask them how you can repair the damage. And Andrew and I were prepared to give you the chance to do just that. But you have made it abundantly clear that you do not properly understand what you must do to earn our forgiveness, and actually - at the same time - to help your own recovery. Instead you have been side-tracked by your own vacuous, showbiz life. Now you are busy selling and promoting your new book about politics, which I have not the slightest interest in reading. Yet I am furious that the BBC - for which my husband worked with such dedication, as a writer, actor and producer for so many years - has been helping you to advertise it. We've seen you on TV and heard you on the radio, being given licence to talk about your book and promulgate your views. So it seems that both you and Jonathan Ross have got off scot-free. What would it take, I wonder, for the BBC to ban you from appearing in its publicly-funded broadcasts? Just how offensive would you have to be to another person during one of its programmes for that to happen? I must conclude, at the end of this whole sorry affair, that you are not remotely sorry for the grotesque misdemeanours of your past. You have led astray the young and naïve and still you are lionised by the BBC; an institution that should roundly condemn you. From your elevated position in the entertainment business, you possess enormous power over impressionable minds, and this concerns me. Last week you were back on TV with your old sparring partner Jonathan Ross, on his new chat show. I listened to you and wondered, in fact, if you had changed one iota. There you were, spouting your dubious political opinions, and insisting, as ever, on being the centre and focus of attention. It seemed to me unhealthy, this constant, obsessive quest to be heard over everyone else. It was not the behaviour of an adult who deserves to be taken seriously. It was the ranting of an adolescent. And yet by writing to my husband and me, you obviously wanted us to believe that you are a grown-up who is capable of behaving properly. You even refer to yourself as a "man" in the letter you sent us. As far as I am concerned, you are not a man if you cannot even be bothered to speak to me having offered to do so. You certainly don't deserve to be taken seriously by the public, either. Although six years have passed since you left those messages on our answerphone, the disgraceful episode continues to haunt us because you still constantly allude to it. As Jonathan Ross was a part of this distasteful affair, I've often wondered how he would feel if his daughters were treated similarly; if their grandparents were taunted with obscene messages left on their answerphone, that were then propagated to the entire nation. Your behaviour is very aptly described as obscene, which the dictionary defines as, "Offensive or disgusting behaviour as judged by accepted standards of morality." But what do you know of such standards? You have flouted them so often and so routinely. How, too, would you feel, I've asked myself, if a female relative of yours - perhaps even a girlfriend - had been treated as we were? To know the answer you have to understand the meaning of empathy, and I fear you know nothing of that. Instead you continue to trifle with our feelings. You have used the tawdry incident in your stage show which you've taken around the country. You have compounded our hurt by making money out of it. Even now, I believe - despite your idle protestations to the contrary - you still seem to mock us. But now we have reached our limit. We refuse to let you toy with our emotions any more. So please do not contact us again. Do not imagine our forgiveness is yours for the asking. And for pity's sake, I beg you, please just leave us alone. From Melody Sachs When contacted by the Mail, Russell Brand said: "Ironically, given my transgression against the Sachs family, I haven't checked my answerphone. I had no idea. I am available to make amends to them at any time. Thanks to the Mail for bringing this to my attention.