What a tremendous shock the weekend’s revelations about Russell Brand’s treatment of women must have been to the bosses of Channel 4, the BBC, and any number of newspaper executives. I mean, who would have thought it? Sure, this was the guy who in 2008 left screeching messages on the answerphone of the elderly actor Andrew Sachs, bragging about sex with his granddaughter; who said that being asked to apologise to the women he had wronged was like “Saddam Hussein picking out individual Kurds”; who described his own sexuality as “complex and rapacious”; and whom Dannii Minogue summed up, after a brief TV interview with Brand in 2006, as “completely crazy and a bit of a vile predator”.
Still, who could ever have guessed that the treble-winner of The Sun “Shagger of the Year” award — the self-confessed owner of a “Wonka ticket to a lovely sex factory thanks to the ol’ fame” — might stray into territory which the words “rape” and “assault” would feature? Of course, there was that 2015 Mail on Sunday interview with Brand’s ex-girlfriend, an articulate former model called Jordan Martin, in which she said that during their six-month relationship, in 2007, the star was controlling, verbally cruel and sexually assaulted her. She warned politicians such as Ed Miliband — recently interviewed by Brand — to stay away. But the wider media didn’t really want to hear. Exes, eh? And anyway, Brand was box-office: a quick-witted, motor-mouthed Essex Byron in a fright wig and skinny jeans who made scant secret of his predilections, although his rhetoric cleverly shunted them more towards the seaside-postcard end of sexuality: his helpless eagerness to service a non-stop parade of willing dolly birds — “different women three, four, five times a day. In Ireland, nine times a day” — which had intermittently landed him in the sex addiction clinic, alias “sex chokey” or “winky nick”.
There are no doubt numerous women for whom sex with Brand delivered more or less what was expected: a fleeting encounter with celebrity, and a longer-lasting anecdote. The details that emerged from the joint investigation by Channel 4’s Dispatches, The Sunday Times and The Times, however, were grimmer and more shocking. One was of Brand pursuing a star-struck 16-year-old girl, Alice, now a regretful adult. At first, the fact of taking Alice’s virginity was enough to excite him, she said. Later, she alleged, his kick came from spitting in her mouth and compelling her to swallow it; or forcing her into oral sex until she punched her way free. Another woman said he raped her at his LA house, an allegation backed up by her visit to a rape crisis centre, and text exchanges in which she wrote “When a girl say(s) NO it means no” in response to which Brand apologised. Yet another woman — whom he met at AA and later worked with — described a sexual assault from Brand which she finally fought off, reportedly leaving him furious.
Dispatches is not a courtroom, of course, and Brand has not been found guilty of a crime. But, then, this type of incident often doesn’t make it to court, as both predators and victims are acutely aware. They unfurl in territory with which many women are nauseously familiar, but which a certain proportion of men seemingly struggle to see clearly or take seriously: situations in which a woman agreed to one sexual act but not another; or consented to sex on a previous occasion but not this time round. Situations in which a measure of trust is swiftly and starkly betrayed.
Brand, who denies the allegations of rape and assault, is now married with two children. He has created a bolt-hole from cancellation in his social media platforms, flanked by an army of 6.6 million followers on YouTube alone. From there he accuses the mainstream media, or “MSM”, of having “another agenda at play” and seeking to silence him for asking difficult questions about Big Pharma and other hot-button topics. Elon Musk and Jordan Peterson have already responded to the clarion call with sympathetic comments. Yet the truth is that Brand himself is a creature of the MSM, as he must know. Mainstream broadcasters and media built him up, flattered him, fawned over him and handed him the keys to the sexual “Wonka factory”. And if its previous record is anything to go by, his spell in what Brandspeak might dub “reputation chokey” may not last long.
A brief list of things that — by a kind of communal consensus — the media has ultimately found excusable in the past: John Peel’s penchant for sex with underage girls (broadcasting genius, and it was the Seventies). Bill Wyman’s sexual relationship with Mandy Smith, then 14 (he was a Rolling Stone, for god’s sake, and it was the Eighties). Jimmy Carr’s Channel 4 rape jokes, such as “what’s the difference between rape and football? Women don’t like football” (if you don’t like “spicy content’” don’t listen). Frankie Boyle’s rape jokes about female athletes, and foully relentless gags about the abducted child Madeleine McCann (ditto: anyway, Frankie’s ‘progressive’ now).
Personally I think they should have locked up the tedious p***k for trying to remake ‘Arthur’ but that apart, I had a problem with that documentary.
It made (iirc) three serious allegations which should be thoroughly-investigated by law enforcement. I’m no expert in law but two of them seem difficult to prove, while one seems to have solid evidence and witnesses.
However, it also referenced behaviour by Brand which was not illegal, while a “sinister” soundtrack played, reminding me of Homer Simpson watching a similar show and saying: “But Marge – he’s clearly guilty – listen to the music!”
Also Brand’s comedy routine was shown as if that guarantees an insight into his behaviour. Family Guy has made jokes about wanting to kill Russell Brand (for being a crap comic) but we don’t present that as evidence of murderous behaviour from the writers of Family Guy.
The Guardian’s running a cartoon in which the audience are depicted as ‘hear-no-evil’ monkeys being duped by Brand’s routine. That’ll be the same Guardian who often employed Brand as a guest columnist when his name guaranteed adclicks, responding to a doc by C4 who used to hire Brand to front their show which used to make £45 million in ad revenue. I’d suggest that what’s changed is not that Brand is now a competitor; it’s that Brand’s name is no longer high-profile and he now sells direct-to-consumer, so he’s now up for scrutiny without damaging the bottom line.
If he’s guilty of breaking the law he should be punished for breaking the law – not for anything else, and nobody needs a lecture in morality from Channel Four or the Guardian.
Exactly. Wish I could give your post more upvotes.
Excellent post. And I agree RB was an absolute horrible comic and his version of Arthur was unwatchable. I don’t take him seriously as a podcaster either, but I certainly share your view about hypocrisy.
The Guardian is more outraged by Russel Brand, then it ever was by grooming gangs.
Exactly they ignored the grooming gangs who really were ‘grooming’ girls to be gang raped , drugged and prostituted . Brand seduced a 16 year old for a sexual affair . His persona was flagrantly sexual and I don’t see how his behaviour can be categorised as ‘grooming’ .
The parents knew where she was going and allowed it to happen. What about their culpability?
I am not entirely sure on what basis they could prevent it happening . She was legally entitled to have an affair with him and he with her . I’m not sure ‘grounding her ‘ was going to work long term .
…and, if you believe her, he did things to that girl which are most definitely illegal and for which, as a father of daughters, I would endorse some quite imaginative punishments. Do you believe her? I’m not of the school that says this should be automatic, but I watched the film and I do. The fact he directly references both of the foul things she says he he did, on stage, in one case saying “this isn’t even a joke”, is surely rather telling…?
Sorry for late reply . The fact that what she accuses him of was part of his stage act surely cuts both ways . She could have taken things in his stage act as part of her claim . Or , possibly more likely , she exaggerated an oral sex act ( surely in itself fairly normal ) in the light of his stage act to be unpleasant and violent . But I can’t say I know what the truth is .
The Guardian hasn’t the guts to criticise the so called grooming gangs, because to acknowlege these overt, in our faces rape gangs containing almost entirely Muslim men, it would leave them in fear of being accused of the one thing this organ dreads, i.e. being called racist, to hell with misogyny and sexual violence. This fear is shared by Left wing comedians, social workers, councillors, The Labour Party itself, and importantly The Establishment. Our Establishment’s MO for tollerating this ubiquitous British crime is to keep them f*****g in order to prevent them from rioting as they did when Rushdie’s ‘Satan’c Verses’ were burned. RB’s sickness is miniscule by comparison but nevertheless all part of the misogyny that refuses to be recognised.
I don’t think that they are in fear of being called ‘racist’, but think there is something else going on, although i am not entirely sure what it is. I have known, and know several people of the left/hard left, who have a great deal of support for the religion of Islam, despite what I would view as it’s hard right credentials, as well as for Muslim countries.
Could it be it’s almost medieval patriarchy? .. the ownership and control of women?
Muslims are seen a victims of the Crusades led by white European Christian Kings . The lefties pick out a few small events in which for a little while Muslim rulers were on ‘the back foot’ and make them paradigmatical of 1000 years of Muslim colonialist expansion between 650 and 1650 AD . How do they think Islam got control of the Holy Land from the eastern Roman Empire in the first place ?
“Preach” as they say. The Grauniad has shown itself to be a craven seeker of approval from any minority group that might appear on its radar, regardless of whether there is any merit in that ‘minority’ group’s position. Because minority groups are always ‘oppressed’ and ‘brave’ and ‘noble’. It’s such a naive & blinkered view.
He was a creation of the MSM but then he went off message
Yes. Brand can never be forgiven for what he did to Andrew Sachs’ granddaughter. But then neither can the BBC/Guardian hacks who defended him – just as they defended another, equally disgusting Brand.
Our corrupt media class created both Brands, just as it has created so many other sub-human ‘celebrities’. A civilised society would tolerate none of them.
Agreed Hugh.
I see a lot of people now being shredded by the media for past or current sexual behaviour that is strictly speaking LEGAL. There is a new phrase,I heard it this morning,I can’t recall it. But it means “sexual bad manners” but the newsreader said this phrase as it it was a recognised crime label on the statute book. All this is confirming my long held suspicion that decades of getting us to accept and be “non-judgmental” about a wide range of sexual.activity was a trap. It took a few decades but we got there,then suddenly we are being presented with real life examples of perfectly LEGAL sexual.activity and like Pavlov’s dogs we have to react with revulsion,just when we’d learned not to. We are being played. As most of this activity is,strictly speaking,LEGAL,the Yuck factor is brought in strongly and hints and suggestions of peaodophila. I’m finding it both disturbing but also strangely amusing. If I had come out of the closet I think I’d keep the door ajar in case it’s safer to go back in.
It will be like being charged with the crime of “Environmental Degradation” for driving a car that had an internal combustible engine in your past.
Women will eventually regret the “me too” movement when they find that men are no longer willing to have sex with them at all lest they someday be charged criminally for regretful sex.
No thoughts for the victims? I doubt these were the only ones. Do you ever wonder why a powerless woman would not go to the police about a high profile and powerful media figure? When it’s her word against his.
A quick search of the internet turned up this odd quote;
Why would a girl allegedly exploited as a 16-year old report it to his literary agent? You report crime to the police
Kiss-n-tell book deal ?
It has been explained repeatedly why reporting being sexually assaulted is not something a women or girl would report to the police. The penny must have dropped by now!
No, I’m afraid the penny hasn’t dropped. If you want to report a sex offence you have to go to the police. Why on earth would ‘Alice’ go to the man’s literary agent?
If she doesn’t go to the police there can be no investigation, prosecution, defence, conviction or acquittal. Are you wanting simple conviction by Channel 4 Dispatches?
D Clover, Oh dear the penny still hasn’t dropped. I’m reminded of Dylan’s Mr Jones, ” You don’t know what is happening, DO YOU? Mr Jones!.
Unfortunately reporting matters to the police is the only valid action if someone has actually had a crime against them – things cannot work based on telepathy or ineptitude
Less threatening? Protection?
Powerless woman? One that might attract a famous man into bed for a 30 minute fling?
No, the only reason he is getting sympathy on here is because of his outspoken and misplaced views that props up his ridiculous shouty blog. The allegations are no surprise at all, he’s a disgusting human being.
There can be no victims of his crimes until Mr Brand has actually been charged and convicted in a law court of actual crimes. No charges, no convictions strictly speaking means no victims although he may have enabled many regretful women.
I thought people were supposed to be treated as innocent until proven guilty. Just seen the sound of Freedom. Perhaps all the people vilifying Brand should think about the burgeoning child trafficking industry world wide and the grooming gangs still active in the UK. A little perspective would be nice.
You’re keen on grading sexual abuse Michael? Imagine a girl’s relief to know the sexual attack on her was merely ‘low grade’. Such comfort! [sigh]
Newsnight relished taking on the Queen’s second son who at worst had sex with a willing 17 year old . But they ignored the horrific abuse of thousands of girls in places like Rotherham , involving genuine grooming leading to gang rape and enforced prostitution ( money going to groomers ) because the perpetrators were from their client demographic .
Which part of forcing one’s p***s so far down someone’s throat, so that they gag and their eyes water is not rape.
The woman may have been willing to perform oral sex on him, once she could not remove his p***s, dispite obvious physical distress it was rape.
I agree. Thank God there’s someone on here who’s decent. The comments here are the pits. Most of them along the lines of ‘no proof and really where’s the harm.’ Everything that man did and said bragged about being the nastiest kind of sexual predator. But hey that’s just for laughs, right? And the blah about innocent till proven guilty: guess what, the Rochdale mob weren’t stopped until there was an investigation by the Times. Like a lot of ocean-going s81ts, Brand will probably go to court for one offence and get away with it. So the pl0nkers on here can quit worrying.
I agree. I also astonished by how people on here seem to think if it’s legal it’s ok without any understanding of morality. He can justly be reviled for his immorality we don’t need an imperfect legal and court system to tell us.
And as for the virtue signalling for race , trumping teenage girls lives, allowing their abuse for decades? In very plain sight? Ignored by the progressive media? Sickening. Unless they happen to be a daughters of powerful men, girls seem to have no value in our society. No wonder so many want to identify as boys.
There will be a revolt and men will cry how unfair. Time to face up.
Girls and women may have no value in our society, but in Islamic societies they do, and that is that their value is half that of men.
Well said. I completely agree. It’s depressing the number of commenters who seem to regard this vile behaviour as somehow unimportant. Let alone the people who’ve downvoted you, presumably because they think it’s absolutely fine. Revolting. Both the man and his supporters.
I would’ve bitten the f**** That wouldve shown him…
Bite down hard enough, you’d have saved a lot of people a lot of grief.
The fact this comment has net negative votes just confirms what a foul cesspit this comments section (with some honourable exceptions) really is.
Why is the word ‘p***s’ disguised? Are we not all adults, and even if we aren’t, this is just a part of the human body. This is madness _ grow up!
“Which part of forcing one’s p***s so far down someone’s throat, so that they gag and their eyes water is not rape.”
No idea. I never said it wasn’t.
deleted
He is now being investigated by the police for a new allegation from 2003. We’ll see if he broke the law on that one.
Ironic that the people most outraged by a celebrity having sex with groupies, are the people obsessed with pushing transgederism onto children.
Problem is: why MSM picked on Brand?
What about investigating passengers on Epstein Lolita Express?
So with Brand we are supposed to believe women.
Strange that the same media did not believe many women accusing Bill Clinton?
What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Apparently it has been replaced by mob lynching! Shame on this article and shame on all who confuse allegations with truth
Can’t understand the downvotes.
Whatever your views on Brand (I dislike him) innocent until proven guilty is a principle. When mob justice, carefully directed and dressed up as media scrutiny, is in the ascendant, it is important to hold onto principles.
Brand is not in prison. If he were convicted in a court of law, he would be. “Mob justice” is merely people hearing these allegations & deciding for themselves if they are true (I think they’re true). If I could, I’d lock Brand in prison, but all I can do is read what others have said while exercising their right to Free Speech.
Well said. They’re all in a flap because the press is simply reporting on the programme. Not a single publication has said he’s guilty. All the ‘mob’ activity is on social media, which will have zero effect on the legal realities of a possible case.
What ever one thinks of these allegations or of Russel Brand the person, the media is not simply reporting. It is a feeding frenzy, massive headline news with endless ‘opinion’ pieces. Clearly this is a media attack with a mission to destroy.
Hmmm, a little overwrought I think. They’ve got hold of a scandal, and ever since the advent of social media all newspapers have become like tabloids. It’s just the kind of juicy scandal to get clicks. That’s all they’re after, as always.
Couldn’t agree more. Apparently this lot think investigative journalism is by definition unethical.
Pity that didn’t apply with Brittan and Bramall or is there a special category for the Left?
Absolute cobblers. He’s not being strung up on the Lanterne. He’s being hoist by his own petard: social media. The actual, old-fashioned media did a thorough investigation on him, entirely within their rights. If there’s enough evidence a case will go to court. If there’s not it won’t. Meanwhile people are making up their own minds. And most of the people on here have already made up their minds that the girls were brainless sluts and Brand is a wrongly traduced sexy chap they all wanted. We’ll just have to wait and see won’t we?
“And most of the people on here have already made up their minds that the girls were brainless sluts and Brand is a wrongly traduced sexy chap they all wanted”
This is incorrect and does not help the case you are making.
It really isn’t. Just look at the comments.
Mikis, for some reason I am unable to vote your comment up. I’m surprised the thoughtful readers on Unherd, include a tiny majority who don’t agree with your statement of what is held to be an obvious truth in a civilised society.
This voting system is beyond comprehension. I’m always bitching about it and asking why not a simple up down vote.
I just voted it up so why can’t you?
Who knows why, that’s the point!
Brand is not in prison. He has no right to “innocent until proven guilty” outside of a courtroom. In fact, it is extremely dangerous to assume everyone is innocent until proven guilty outside of a legal context. If you disagree, I have a Nigerian prince I’d like to introduce to you.
Well said.
If you’re looking for civilised society on social media, you are going to have a long wait.
I don’t like or trust Brand but the Despatches documentary was both flimsy and manipulative. Four years’ investigation and all they can produce is four fairly insubstantial allegations that have to be made to stand up by formulaic background music.
Background music and roses … why roses?
Nothing has happened to it. Brand is not going to prison. If he were found guilty in a court of law, he would be locked up.
I don’t imagine these allegations will ever make it to a criminal court, so his guilt or innocence in these cases is unlikely to be tested.
However, people are entitled to look at the pungent sleaze of the man over many years and draw their own conclusions. One of which might reasonably be ‘I’d keep him away from my daughter.’
What’s disturbing aren’t the recent allegations (who’d have thought it!) but the fact that media outlets whose leitmotif is progressive moralistic crusading (yes, Guardian, we’re talking about you) were quite so willing to turn a blind eye so long as Brand stuck to their political script and made them lots of money.
I always found him utterly repellent & never understood the blah about him being a babe magnet. If ever there was a media hype, that was it. His voice alone is like chalk on a bl00dy blackboard. I’ve considered him boring for England ever since he first appeared, and utterly vile since his disgusting phone message to Andrew Sachs. His constant bragging about being sexually predatory was treated as such a lark by the progressive types. He’s an oceangoing creep who should be flushed down the pan along with the rest of the sewage.
You sound like a very nice person on the other hand.
Gosh thanks ; )
Presumably, then, you apply the same argument to defend Jimmy Savile?
SIR Jimmy Savile please!
Was it ever rescinded?
Sir Jimmy Savile, OBE, KCSG, if you please! He was knighted by the Queen and Pope St John Paul II. Evidently no one had read his autobiography where he boasted of bedding 2,500 women. Hey, he was just another lovable Jack the Lad.
And no one seems to have read “Lorraine goes to Livingstone” which describes, in fictional form, his necrophilic activities in the hospital morgue. There are perks for volunteering as a hospital porter. Jimmy never sued for libel. It would have made a uniquely lurid court case.
Spot on.
Innocent until proven guilty is only applicable to the law, not the court of public opinion. People are allowed to form their own opinions, which is all that’s happened here. He is still innocent in the eyes of the law and will be until he is found guilty of a crime in a court of law.
Public opinion is being manipulated by the media though. See the problem?
Since the problem is obvious to you, why don’t you think it’s obvious to other people? Oh, because they’re stupider than you. Right.
It’s not really a ‘mob lynching’ is it… Numerous allegations from different sources that fit very neatly with the media persona projected over decades, and direct statements in line with behaviour about himself, by himself.
Over decades.
Defended by Andrew Tate and Elon Musk for being picked on by ‘msm’.
Just grow up.
In an environment when very basic accessible robust statistics collected over years and years in relation to sexual abuse indicate that it is pretty much decriminalised in UK, as based on CPS prosecutions, you’re honestly bleating about this.
How dull and myopic.
Shame on you.
Well said.
Amen. Se my reply in similar vein to Ewen Mac
Those that live by social media may also die by social media. I’m old school I’d settle for a full Bobbitt.
The hypocrisy is what stands out the most. Brand may or may not be a predator, that is one valid issue. The other is: Why are these allegations seeing the light of day now? Many of the writers currently rending their garments would have given no Fs about Brandt’s activities back when he was a Progressive in good standing. But he’s popular and drifted too far to the right. Jenny McCartney writes that these allegations are no shocker. I look forward to reading all her prior articles about Brand’s appalling behaviour.
Eh? I think you’ve confused metaphor and reality. The programme was the result of an investigation. It’s being reported in the newspapers. People are drawing their own conclusions. If there’s enough evidence, a case will go to court. If there isn’t it won’t. Meanwhile Brand is still perfectly happily making money on the same social media that’s now in a frenzy, a frenzy that will nevertheless have zero effect on the legal outcome.
Nonsense. No one’s dragging him to the Lanterne. A newspaper has run a long investigation which has been reported. Everyone is making up their own minds.
I suspect RB is not likely to be convicted of a crime in the eyes of the law. This is not about the legality of his behaviour, it’s simply about his behaviour which he himself admits to, albeit, he reckons, with mutual consent. When you have an ego the size of his, any refusal to have sex with him is incomprehensible.
This is about the MSM, its compliance wth his behaviour and the media’s blind eyed indifference to sexual violence and misogyny. It’s an exposure of this behaviour, it doesn’t need provimg because it’s admitted to. What the lessons are, what we need to do in the light of this is fix it, not divert it into legal rangles and so allow it to perpetuate.
The Times/Sunday Times is pro-Biden, pro-neocon foreign policy and pro-lockdown driven by vaxx regimes. There might well have been a journalist on this 5 years ago but that is some time to hold a story and the feeling now is that RB has been fitted-up as an abuser in the style of J Assange in Sweden.
This trial by media removes a figure who had been reaching larger and larger numbers of the American public via appearances with Bill Maher. With an anti-war message.
Sociologically, the power of the media to become moral arbiters simply didn’t exist in a former celebrity age when such people lived promiscuous ‘rock star lifestyles’.
The Times was also given huge sum of money by Bill Gates, someone whose deeply sinister agenda was exposed by Russell Brand. Does anyone think this is a coincidence?
Quelle Surprise, as we say in Yorkshire.
I personally loathed ‘our Russell ‘ and even his new schtick still has that deranged quality about it but he’s surely had the balls to ask questions and point the torch at all sorts of doodoo.
And I totally agree that pornography is the new poison/opiate of the masses
But nobody has to go back to the house of ‘shagger of the year’ to get a celebrity lay, do they ?
And it is surely too much of a coincidence that he has called attention to the big beasts.
Bilbo Gates went to Epstein Island 13 times I think and nobody gives a monkey’s, least of all Amol Rajah of the Beeb who worshipped at Bilbo’s feet for a 20 minute cringefest recently.
Gates is another oceangoing creep. But guess what, that doesn’t mean Brand isn’t.
No it doesn’t but it would appear Gates vast wealth and power, funding of the WHO, several newspapers, magazines etc seems to have granted him not only invulnerability but also a powerful voice on all matters vaccine related despite not being qualified in medicine or science.
The Daily Telegraph’s Global Health Security team was set up using millions from Gates. That paper is also running several pieces attacking Brand – no comments allowed.
Don’t dare rail against the Pharmo industry. In America, it seem like 3/4 of all advertising on network TV is for one pill or another these days. Always follow the money.
God that’s really desperate. ‘Deeply sinister agenda exposed’ what complete cobblers. The ghastly Gates’s aims for world domination have been completely obvious to most of the public for a good 20 years. I think you’re a bit out of touch. Or possibly, like Brand’s audience, so young that ancient clichés strike your ears like great profundities.
I am part of Brand’s audience and I can assure you that they are not all young. Smart maybe, but not young. You clearly have never watched one of his podcasts. Why don’t you lance the poisoned boil.
If they were smart they wouldn’t be brand’s audience.
‘Smart maybe’ is genuinely funny. Watching two of his podcasts was enough, same dreary conspiracy theories filtered through the same dreary narcissism. I think you’ve mistaken verbosity for profundity. Meanwhile you are concerned about people being ‘manipulated’ by mass media. I really couldn’t have made that particular contrast up.
Brand ‘exposed’ nothing. Bill Gates’s world domination shenanigans have been common currency for 20 years. One has to be young, uninformed or just half witted to mistake Brand’s hoary old clichés for profound new insights.
Didn’t mean to post here again!
For sure rock stars got/get away with it. But doesn’t Brand hold himself up to a higher standard? However, the 16 year old seemed willing enough to go along with the program. It smells a bit like Prince Andrew and Virginia Guiffre, she who made millions from the sex and was happy to tell her mother about it. Is anyone going to sue Brand one wonders. Otherwise what’s the agenda.
The 16 year old also told her mother about the relationship! In one account the mother contacted Brand to confirm her daughter was 16 ie above the legal age of consent!
That woman,the permanent 16 year old,she came across to me as a bit simple,learning difficulties or whatever they call it now. She seemed not all there. Maybe Russ shagged her brains out. She just seemed to me as an adult woman really ,the word is STUPID actually.
The sort of person who doesn’t know what day it is. She said she worked in tv production so that confirms it really.
Oh gosh well that makes all right then doesn’t it?
What a truly horrible attitude.
This thing of mums pimping out daughters to celebs doesn’t seem to be entirely new. Wasn’t the situation with a certain Mr Glitter, and a certain Rolling Stone pretty similar. Why any mum in her right mind would allow her daughter to hang around with someone like RB is beyond me – let alone aid and abet the process.
So that makes it alright of course. For the 16 year old. I’m amazed and depressed at the number of people here who seem to think that if you’re a teenager, you had it coming. It’s revolting.
He holds himself to a higher standard now for sure – maturing does that – but he certainly didn’t back then. Those drug and alcohol fuelled years of bad behaviour were when the press couldn’t get enough of him and so, it could be argued, those who now sit in judgement of him actively encouraged him to be his worst self and he happily obliged thinking he was untouchable.
Our culture is sick for it has worshipped the worst excesses, glorified obnoxious and mouthy male and female diva behaviour and it still does until they stop being useless clowns that is.
Only the other day the BBC was defending playing a song with lyrics that advocated punching a ‘terf’.
I see no sign of “maturing”.
I have no doubt at all that that’s what motivated the Times/ST and morally censorious channel 4. But that doesn’t invalidate the article nor the fact that the allegations MAY turn out to be true.
I think the law should be changed to make it illegal to make such allegations public rather than taking them to the police and only making them public if/when the police make criminal charges. This trial by media is a disgusting phenomenon – every channel is awash with discussion and speculation. Has everyone forgotten Cliff Richard and Paul Gambaccini, innocent though found guilty by the media.
Has everyone forgotten Savile – who wasn’t investigated though his behaviour was a byword, as was Brand’s – and who got away with abuse all his life? And the Rochdale crew, who were investigated by the Times, and only went to court for their disgusting crimes because of that investigation? You know, that’s where the phrase comes from ‘investigative journalism’. The fact that it’s like hen’s teeth doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. Or isn’t needed.
Oh gawd. Another half wit who thinks he has ideas. Grow the f up.
Gosh another fan of Brand’s Youtube conspiracy drivel. Thicker than autumn leaves in Valhambrosa. Or possibly two short planks.
I no longer #believeallwomen so by my reckoning at least two thirds of the accusations have nothing to them and the other third are there due to regret at not profiting from exposure to Brand’s star power in some way. I have become far too cynical about all of this. Brand has always been a well known dissolute degenerate and indeed made it his reputation, so presumably he is viewed as an easy target. I find it interesting that the moment people become a threat politically this comes out of the woodwork after a massive media investigation.
The reputations of JFK, MLK, Clinton and Biden remain untarnished notwithstanding similar allegations
And visitors to Epstein Island have always somehow been treated with complex discretion
Seems loads of old girlies are signing up to the Russel Brand shagged me honours list. I expect ill be the only Brit woman left NOT on the list.
Tbf, it does seem like he may have attempted to work his way through the population. It does seem to me to be very much a case of relationship remorse. Back in the day, if you dated someone you later regretted, you learned your lesson and moved on with your life. Today, we accuse them of grooming because heaven forbid anyone takes any responsibility for the choices they make!
—
Russell Brand a political threat. Because he’s got 6 million half witted followers of his conspiracy theory monologues. That is genuinely funny.
It is easy to rush to judgement. None of us know the truth of this matter but can recognise a concerted attempt to destroy someone’s career when they see one. Russell Brand’s extraordinary success at building a following on YouTube exceeding 6.6 million has given him real power to dent the carefully constructed public personas of various extremely rich interests (Blackrock, the pharmaceutical industry, Fauci, Bill Gates to name a few he has addressed). He is, to use a phrase beloved of political commentators, ‘cutting through’.
His use of humour and his extraordinary verbal agility, has allowed him to present ideas (usually backed by research from credible sources) that are often simply ignored in the MSM, who are heavily influenced by the same very rich interest groups he is investigating.
Those commenting here in support of Brand’s destruction may wish to ponder on who will hold the powerful to account when the MSM are now so clearly failing in this duty. Be careful what you wish for.
No one in their right mind would wish for Brand
Given the many women that have already passed through his bed, it can be argued that not many women are in their right mind. Then lets also consider the women who offer up their children to child predators like Ian Watkins (Lost prophets) and those that send love letters to Savannah Brockhill (Star Hobson killer). Maybe we should look at why so many women are attracted to bad people and abusive relationships.
Ideas? Credible sources? On which planet exactly? All Brand’s ever had on offer are his own monumental self-regard and a bottomless resource of shopworn clichés.
A conspiracy theorist speaks
A NPC speaks
Quite. With the far reaching Online Harms Bill now with the Lords it will be far harder for anyone to hold power to account. Very little to read about this Bill as the papers all latched on the Brand story and gave that the headlines and opinion piece space.
Brand is dangerous, because he goes after the truth. He promotes dangerous open-mindedness and alternative thoughts. He speaks about issues that he should not, and often presents evidence that is not convenient to mainstream narratives. The worst thing he does is argue these things articulately and effectively, so he must be destroyed. So, the options are call him a racist, anti-Semite or make old rape allegations. This is how they work. This will help close many peoples minds to anything he says. They did the same with these men:
-Donald Trump – alleged sexual assault from 25+ years ago
-Brett Kavanaugh – alleged sexual assault from 30+ years ago
-Julian Assange – alleged rape
-Elon Musk – alleged antisemitism [and alleged sexual harassment]
-Joe Rogan – alleged racism
-Tucker Carlson – alleged racism
-Russell Brand – Alleged rape from 15+ years ago
-Andrew Tate – alleged rape, and human trafficking
-Steven Crowder – alleged psychological abuse
-Matt Gaetz – alleged sex trafficking
From the Sonnets, Mostly Bristolian:-
……….
Sonnet 151
He’s to be scoped, the rapey narcissist,
athwart on camp-bed with a cigarette,
recalling ruefully his Swedish tryst.
It’s pretty gamey in that oubliette,
and latterly his visitors are few
and low status: just junior attachés
and interns. No more television crews
now camp beneath his balcony; that craze
of troubadour paying court to caytiff king
has passed. Now Julian’s the apostate,
there’ll be an end of virtue-signalling.
Let Cumberbatch and Gaga find new mates;
the creep will linger like a nasty smell
inside his Ecuadorian hotel.
I still feel that Julian Assange is baseline creepy but now I understand what he and it was about,and I kind of see the picture. I just can’t like him somehow.
I agree. Sometimes creeps get things right, but they’re still creeps.
Ha ha it took me a while get who it’s about . Let’s hope he is on the way to the states soon .You surely should rewrite it to include his legal representative’s sleep overs
Thanks. I wrote it several years ago while he was still hiding out in the Ecuadorian Embassy, but it would be tempting to write a follow-up along the lines you suggest.
Rubbish.
Well, in the case of Crowder, you can watch the video of him verbally and psychologically abusing his wife, and his former podcast partners have very credibly described his bullying and manipulation.
As for Brand, as other commenters have noted, he’s fair game now that he’s off the plantation. If he were still a good little leftist, this wouldn’t be happening.
He has a small army of followers who completely agree with his conspiracy theories and will therefore follow him whatever.
If only Epstein had been so rigorously investigated by journalists when he lived.
(The one exception being the journalist from the Miami Herald)
Theyre coming for us all.
Don’t flatter yourself.
FO 77th brigade troll
A word of advice. A healthy position to adopt is intelligent scepticism towards everything. If you add everyone on the list (and Brand) to the list of all the people you already don’t like, that would bring some balance to your world view.
Alleged – and true
I’m not sure what to make of this essay. Yes, the porn industry is nasty and degrading. I think we all realize that. Brand may be a sleazeball, but these allegations are two days old. Maybe we should hold off convicting him.
This statement triggered my BS detector. I find it very difficult to believe this is true.
“…in a 2020 BBC Disclosure survey of 2,049 UK men aged between 18-39, 71% said they had slapped, choked, gagged or spat on their partner during consensual sex.”
Are you worried about the mass exposure of children and youth teens to pornography?
Sure I am, along with a million other things today’s youth are exposed to that I wasn’t as a child.
It’s surfaced a lot more in gay sex in the past few years – 99% of the time from young guys. They’re getting it from somewhere.
How do you know that?!
So what point are you making with the BBC disclosure survey? The sex may have been consensual but was the abuse that followed also consensual? Apparently the men never asked for permission.
I find it hard to believe 70% of people enjoy sex involving degradation of their partner.
It’s not “people” it’s men.
Staggering though you may find the concept, your finding it hard to believe something doesn’t mean it’s not true.
As in “please may I spit in your face now dear.”
Don’t be silly.
He isn’t. He’s highlighting just how gross the behaviour is. Gross enough that it shouldn’t be happening, full stop.
Obvious misquoting by the author. From the BBC : BBC Disclosure and BBC 5Live commissioned a survey of 2,049 UK men aged 18 to 39 to assess how so-called “rough sex” was being navigated.
In the survey, 71% of the men who took part said they had slapped, choked, gagged or spat on their partner during consensual sex.
One-third (33%) of the men who had done this said they would not ask verbally whether their partner would like them to do it either before or during sexual activity.
My issue with this Brand expose is that you could see the sleaze oozing from him right from the start and yet he was a media and lefty darling. He has only lost favour with the media luvvies in the last 3 years of him going off-script politically which coincides with this ‘investigation’. I do not trust the media which built up this man and facilitated his transgressive behaviour to also investigate him. All incriminating evidence should be turned over to the police and the victims as well as Brand can take it from there. C4 continues to push sexually transgressive and frankly insulting personalities at the public. They proudly showcased a trans identified man playing the piano with his p***s while singing offensive lyrics about women just last year. They have shielded all sorts of sexual predators and deigned to probe mass rapes – the asian grooming scandal comes to mind- when it suits their middleclass value system. Their behaviour in pushing trans ideology at children and cancelling gender critical women is incredibly risible. I have always disliked Brand and would like to see him receive his just desserts but remain immensely wary of the media narrative. A touch too convenient.
I watched the documentary and was struck by the complaint from those who felt they were being forced to act as pimps by Russell Brand. Following Brand’s instructions/requests, they approached young women, 18+, and asked for the young women’s phone numbers to pass onto Brand or gave them the name of the hotel where he was staying. The complainants are representing themselves as Brand’s victims as well. It is the mindset of the underlying Marxist doctrine being exposed. He had the power so they were his victims too. They could have refused, it is called free will, it is true they might have lost their jobs but that would have been unfair dismissal. Also, sometimes doing the right thing costs. The person voicing the complaint was a woman which was necessary because if it had been a man, then he would probably have been accused of enabling, or colluding with, Russell Brand. Was just doing my job considered an acceptable excuse in N*** Germany? It’s clear that the left protect their own and seek to bring down/silence dissident voices.
The only woman he never shagged because she was right ugly. Like me too. Yes,I thought that “he made us get their phone numbers” excuse was pathetic.
Why are you afraid to write the word Nazi? Has it also become a taboo?
The survey is here https://savanta.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Final-5Live-Mens-Poll-Tables-140220-2c0d4h9.pdf
The headline depends on how you interpret the responses to the questions given. The actions in full were “Slapping a partner with an open hand on any part of the body”, “Placing your hands around a partner’s neck and applying pressure”, “Blocking or partially blocking a partner’s mouth with a body part or item”, “Spitting on a partner during sexual activity”, “Hair-pulling your partner’s hair during sexual activity”, “Biting your partner’s skin during sexual activity”.
So, if you French kissed, ran your fingers through your partner’s hair, tapped her on the bottom, nibbled her ear and drooled a little, you’d have done most of them according to the questions asked – but not necessarily in an overtly violent or aggressive mode.
The 33% ‘without consent’ is explicitly without verbal consent. Other forms of consent (eg body language, nonverbal signals) were actually given as responses to the question, but excluded from the 33% figure. The headline has been crafted to be more dramatic than the data.
The thing is and I speak from my own experience aged 17 and that was 50 years ago but like in that old joke “I just like to talk about it sometimes officer’,I said “yes” to my “boyfriend ” of nearly a year who continually talked about when we get married,and what I thought I was saying Yes to turned out to be not what he had in mind but luckily being young,healthy and fit I quickly fought him off,that’s not romantic is it,Jackie magazine never mentioned that or any pop songs of the era. So the wedding was off. Girls should be warned about this in those “sex education ” lessons. In fact instead of body parts and how they fit together teach girls that many boys,lads,men are liars on the make so don’t be a free f**k.
In future before any session.of sexual intimacy takes place have a long and detailed discussion specifying exactly which body parts will be involved and where then go off the idea and have a cup of tea instead.
That’s a decidedly boring plan.
Sounds like a great plan for sucking all the life out of sex.
Thanks for doing the research. I kind of guessed the slapping would include slapping on the bottom, which is so normal a part of lovemaking that it would seem ridiculous to ask for permission. I assume that if it’s the first time, most people do it lightly and see what the reaction is.
Were women asked if they had lacerated a male body part with sharp objects? That is scratched his back or bottom with fake nails. Was permission asked first?
That paragon of truth. The BBC. Lol
Contrast Auntie Beeb’s hand-flapping over Russell Brand with their complete and utter silence over Huw Edwards.
One used to be on their team, and one still is.
I found that hard to believe as well.
Yes, I wondered about that startling statistic. I wonder how the BBC recruited these ‘2,049 men between 18 and 39’ – and what steps were taken to ensure this was a properly representative sample – rather than a sample drawn from men who like answering BBC surveys on rough sex.
The Guardian/Observer from 2006 (17 years ago) – “This charming man”
“It would probably take an entire issue of The Observer to fully explain Russell Brand. He’s hugely ‘hot’ at the moment on quite a few different levels. … These days only one of Brand’s addictions remains: the alleged ‘sex addiction’. … He hasn’t helped matters by admitting during his stand-up that he slept with prostitutes when he was off his skull, or giving interviews announcing ‘I’m obsessed with sex'” https://www.theguardian.com/media/2006/jun/18/broadcasting.arts
In 2006 sex was clearly and overtly part of ‘the package’ that wowed even the liberal media. Brand played the charming man/scoundrel and apparently women gave him sex in return, including short-term relationships until he ran off with other women. Was it hook-up culture, where he was the trophy shag, post-coital regret, or did he cross a legal line coercing women into sex against their will? Can’t tell from here. That would need a court to decide. But maybe hook-up culture isn’t so good for women?
Thanks, Unherd, for keeping the comments open on this topic. The ‘Spectator’ (out of cowardice? or to enhance its sale value?) has closed comments on its piece by its literary editor who toes the smug party line.
“Dispatches is not a courtroom, of course, and Brand has not been found guilty of a crime.”
Ah, but do go on.
Strikes me that this is about shutting down his social media profile. Channel 4 has quickly removed all content that includes him “not been found guilty …”, no doubt YouTube will swiftly follow. And I’d be careful about relying upon screen shots of a text message where one exchange is missing a time stamp & the font differs throughout.
This will not even cause a ripple in his YouTube following.
No doubt, unless YouTube bow to pressure & shut his channel down.
I find it bizarre that people seem baffled when men who have seemingly infinite access to consensual sex rape and abuse. Because it isn’t about sex. That was obvious to me from the dispatches investigation. The circumstances around the assaults described were always that brand was angry or upset by something else. Its about control, power, violence.
Exactly.
control, power, violence…and sex.
like the way the Mafia is about control, power, violence….and money; or terrorism is about control, power, violence….and politics.
Even the most pacific erotic experience will have elements of “control, power, violence”. Hence why some feminists say all heterosexual intercourse is ‘rape’.
A gay man who edited female erotic fiction, written by women for women, said that his job involved re-writing the books into proper English … and re-writing the rape fantasies (which Amazon wouldn’t publish). People are very, very weird and we cannot possibly come to terms with that. And pornography makes it worse.
Or at least they did until the power dynamics of gay and lesbian relationships bubbled to the surface.
A lot of sex is about power,violence and control. A lot of relationships are about power,violence and control.
And they don’t always (or perhaps even often) coincide. Many extracurricular sexual activities have the aim of increasing the level of excitement for the other partner. Often they have the aim of increasing female excitement (women being on average harder to arouse). In any case, that requires empathy and consideration for your partner, trust and not being judgemental – signs of a healthy relationship.
Obviously there are brutes and sadists out there who get a sexual kick out of bullying – but it’s not the norm.
THANK YOU JANE for cutting right through all this wiffling crap about trial by media etc etc. You have called it and said it how it is, and in light of all the comments surrounding this one it is clear that a women’s perspective here was completely necessary. Your few sentences have both sized up the thing itself and the response and highlighted the nexus of it all.
Thank you Jane.
Link to this survey anyone? Does this show that men are awful porn addled brutes, or that acts once considered outré are now normalised. And is that a slapped face, or a slapped bottom? Two thirds apparently would ask for consent. Do we know how many women ask for the acts to be performed or find them exciting?
Sex is not a vicarage tea party. Things do go on in the bedroom, some involving various kinds of power play, which the same people would never do in a normal context. We really aren’t in Kansas anymore.
I can’t express how much we, with a tween daughter, worry about the modern manifestations of porn and sleaze and accessibility, and how normalised it’s all become. I hope Brand gets booky-wooked.
It is getting normalised in schools with some LGBT-themed books and universities with kink clubs. Teachers, librarians, the media, even organisations like the Girl Guides are part of the problem.
I understand your concerns for your daughters. I too am outraged by the hardcore porn that is so readily available and accessible to boys – and girls. It has been allowed for decades now by all manner of governments and has been the direct cause of much sexual abuse. Younger women I know have told me harrowing tales of how boys had expected them to behave like porn stars their idea of sex was so warped. School boys demanding that girls go down on them as if it was their right and girls often complied.
Being ‘sexy’ became all about being overtly sexual and various industries have profited from the sexualisation of the young, from clothes manufacturers to the music industry.
In 2006, Pink released a song called Stupid Girls – it was meant not to victim shame but as a warning and indictment of the sickness that had taken hold. So many films were made that depicted horrific violence and depravity towards women, it was seen as acceptable entertainment for goodness sake and accepted by mainstream news media.
In my opinion destroying Brand at this juncture will not help our young but it will get rid of a major irritant and siren voice that has lifted the lid on the rank hypocrisy of our so-called elites, media and mainstream culture. Had he not become an enemy I don’t believe this would have come to light only now.
I must say that I find this trial by TV of Brand repugnant. Evidence should have been given to the police. Let him be charged and if the evidence is there then take it to court. That is the only way now.
I recently read that weirdo actor Ethan Hawke is directing his own daughter in a film’s violent sex scenes. No one seems remotely concerned about that obvious depravity.
In 2006 YouTube was 1 year old and P***hub had not been launched so I’m not sure Pink was really singing about a situation analogous to today
Read the lyrics perhaps?
If Brand did commit a criminal act, all this prior negative publicity will make it very difficult to have any such charges stick.
It’s not improbable that this circus primarily is about the money. Brand used them for sex, now they’re using him for money.
An honest hooker would have been a much better idea, but of course Brand is, or was, a self-obsessed fool.
How does anyone prove what did not take place between 2 people in private, years ago?
You can’t; and this wave of negative publicity about Brand means that, if a criminal case was brought, his lawyer could easily argue that a fair trial was an impossibility, given the degree to which an average juror’s mind had already been influenced against Brand.
Of course, the accusers know that, and they have no interest in seeing a criminal case brought, as one cannot reasonably be “beyond reasonable doubt” about something which took place between 2 people in private, years ago, in any event.
But you can possibly run a civil case, as it merely need be sustained on the “balance of probabilities”. And the greater likelihood of that happening will have a much greater chance of causing an accused party to $£ttle.
I read an article on Brand yesterday in which it was reported that, after a gig years ago, he stood on stage and announced he was going into the audience to ask 12 women to go backstage with him for sex. Of the 12 women he publicly asked, 10 publicly agreed and went backstage with him, whereupon he then selected one to take to his hotel.
This was reported in an article about the rape allegations being made against him, and this extremely consensual behaviour – and very open and publicy consensual behaviour – was presented as if it was appalling behaviour which exemplified the allegations made against him.
We’re now being invited to consider that that woman who agreed to go back to his room for sex had no agency, and was a victim of a criminal act, not merely a participant in a sleazy consensual hook-up.
The reality is that women are sexually attracted to celebrity status in men, much more so than men are to celebrity status in women.
As a teen, at a community festival, I remember being shocked at girls my own age fawning over a 40-something lead singer of a local covers band. He was nothing special to look at, and to his credit was embarrassed by the attention, but girls my own age were literally throwing themselves at him. Had he not had local celebrity status, they’d not have given him a second glance.
Some of the women who used Brand as a celebrity shag will have been happy enough to have that to boast about afterwards; others, more gullible, will have been deluded enough to have assumed that sex with him meant something, and were hurt when it dawned on them that he didn’t give a flying fig about them.
That’s promiscuity for ya. It’s cheap, it’s selfish, it’s sleazy, it’s ultimately tedious and shallow. It’s not my cup of tea, but it’s not a criminal offence, and I’m somewhat sceptical about much of this stuff.
It’s redolent of the line in The Outsider, where the protagonist is tried for murder but convicted for failing to cry at his mother’s funeral.
In this case, Brand is being accused of rape, and is likely to be damned publicly for being promiscuous.
There is a tight-mouthed new feminist puritanism afoot, and if your sexual mores are not up to the modern puritan / wholesome standard, a criminal conviction can always be found to express the popular moral revulsion at your lifestyle.
Meanwhile, every Friday night, there are ordinary drunk blokes (not rich, not famous) going home to beat their wives. Nobody cares, certainly not metoo, but of course neither such blokes nor the women they assault have any fame, any class, or any money. Non-stories.
Metoo is full of middle-class white women in search of chaperones. The real violence that some working class women endure does not concern them. You’ll find your typical me-tooer writing for a luvvie publication, or “active on campus”. You won’t find her working in a shelter for battered women.
On the contrary, she’s the CEO of the shelter and is determined to make sure transgender women have full access to it.
Not true.
Not true.
Spot on.
A brief list of things that…..
Is then followed by a list which deliberately confuses actual illegal and immoral acts with jokes, as if (following the popular rxpe culture trope) they have little to distinguish them. One of the key things about certain kinds of jokes is that they break taboos which their audience accepts. They are transgressive for that very reason, and that makes them funny. Often we are shocked at ourselves for laughing. They should not be confused with actual acts.
It is always what is left unsaid that is most revealing. The rape victim arrived at Brand’s apartment after midnight following a phone call where he asked her to come over for sex. The full text messages are ambiguous and can be read that the No means No was about Brand not using a condom! Cherry picking evidence is how the media now operates!
Yes,several of his harem came over as extremely stupid.
Neil, babe, removing or not using a condom when you have said that you are doing so is technically rape in UK. So if I cherry pick the evidence where she said use a condom and he refused to or pretended to, THEN THAT IS RAPE.
To be honest you sound like such a dim man that you may not even realise you are possibly also a rapist. Neil, now this is important, did you ever pretend to use a condom then remove it stealthily?
As an aside, how about big grown up clever people that want to make a useful comments on sexual assault etc understand the terms and perhaps learn something from survivors or sexual assault as opposed than from men who want to deny it (before they share their childish malformed brain darts).
The level of ignorance on this is astounding, the majority of these comments come from thought processes a child would be ashamed of. Just learn something, please, stop guessing and imagining these scenarios. Read some shit from actual survivors.
And I’m afraid you’ve just made the situation one comment worse!
Hate men much?
Brand gets the full treatment. But grooming gangs? Epstein Island? Tumbleweed.
This article runs two very different topics together: the increasing degradation and misogyny of the porn industry with a series of allegations against Russell Brand. Why? It’s strikes me as loaded indeed.
Yes. It’s the rxpe culture narrative. Jokes, porn, rape, inequality etc all get bundled together as if they are all part of the same thing, or that one inevitably leads to the other. It’s mythological thinking.
C S Lewis observed in an essay how anything could be made acceptable if it were presented with humour.
The most spiteful trick, the most cruel objurgation, when later described to an audience and accompanied by exaggerated gesticulations and extensions to absurdity, can be excused by that audience who, not wanting to seem that they lack a sense of humour, laugh along. And in so doing, validating the cruelty and the spitefulness and thus blaming the victim, laugh themselves along the way to perdition. Laughter, the nice conformity. The plushily upholstered living room in Hell.
The late Ken Dodd famously fashioned his comedy as a door-to-door salesman in Liverpool. The stern landladies had to be charmed into buying his wares. They were as much buying him as they were his tea towels. Dodd’s canny lawyer used the comedian’s carefully crafted scatty stage persona to defeat the Inland Revenue. The audience assessed the humour as more credible than the dry-as-dust presentation of the bureaucrats.
Thanks for that C S Lewis reference. I assume it is Screwtape letter number 12 you are referring to – a shrewd critique of the vaunted English sense of humour (oddly reminiscent of Orwell). I particularly like this line:
It’s reassuring to see the number of people responding with some variation of “look, I loathe the guy – but this smells worse than a bullshit factory during the summer”.
Did we even need the Sunday Times and C4 to tell us about this man, who has been a self-evident loudmouth charlatan ever since he first appeared in the media? It is worse than sad that so many – very largely male – contributors to this column appear to admire and envy him.
Totally agree with your assessment. I’ve met plenty of women who also seem taken in though. Gullibility knows no gender.
From the Sonnets, Mostly Bristolian
……….
Sonnet 78
Where to begin dissecting Russell Brand?
The matted rug’s quite Da’esh Caliphate.
Ditto the beard. The overactive glans
in God knows what kind of infectious state.
Creeping towards belated middle age,
the weeping winkie of this Peter Pan
has petered out, beset by phallophage.
May God have mercy on the ghastly man,
who can’t afford to put sleeves on his shirts.
Lo! On his mattress stuffed with last year’s pranks
this yahoo reeking worse than his own dirt
unglues his Bookywook and limply uanks.
He says he wants a revolution. Well,
he’ll need a lot of antiseptic gel.
I don’t know much about Brand but I know a monstering when I see one.
Can you monster a monster?
I have AA Gill’s collection of essays in book form including the one about the porn shoot and I think this is rather an unfair hatchet job here. It misses entirely the premise upon which Gill was asked to get involved, namely to see if there was any value in adding a real narrative dimension to the typically transparent plotline of the typical porn film. The conclusion that it was both pointless and impossible anyway was a worthwhile piece of journalism, in my opinion.
Jenny, you make many valid arguments and I respect your article. However, it really is important to remind ourselves that Mr Brand has not been charged, let alone convicted of any of these very old allegations.
Further, Brand has always been open about the way he lived the first half of his life to date. In the absence of criminal convictions, should we not give him (and his wife) credit for the “new” man he seems to be? It seems he is off drugs and drink and seems faithfully married with daughters and a baby on the way. He has a Foundation that has helped addicts and abused women I believe. So, forgiveness? Redemption? All those Christian things? Unless of course, he is charged, tried, and convicted. Which so far he has not been.
Well said.
Or possibly not.
His victims went to the press because our both our police force and our broadcasting companies have demonstrated they are utterly untrustworthy about the abuse of women by famous men. The Times conducted the investigation and it was aired by Dispatches, a programme with a long history of excellent investigative journalism. It is the nature of investigative journalism precisely to investigate people who have not been charged. Doing away with that because it’s not ‘nice’ is really not a sensible move. No action was taken against the vile Rochdale abuses until a Sunday Times investigation was published. So best think again.
First rate piece; Brand isn’t even the tip of the iceberg, as Jenny McCartney is clearly aware, in plain sight and not even hiding. And by the way, no rush to judgement here: the Mary Harrington piece about the possibility of two versions which are both right strikes me as possible too in some cases; a retrospective regret for things more or less permitted in the past is not at all unusual, and ‘standards’ really have changed so enormously as McCartney indicates.
I strongly suspect that what motivated the Times/ST and morally censorious channel 4 was bringing down someone who had become a threat to them. But that doesn’t invalidate the article nor the fact that the allegations MAY turn out to be true.
I think the law should be changed to make it illegal to make such allegations public rather than taking them to the police and only making them public if/when the police make criminal charges. This trial by media is a disgusting phenomenon – every channel is awash with discussion and speculation. Has everyone forgotten Cliff Richard and Paul Gambaccini, innocent though found guilty by the media?
I reposted this because the original seems to have no uptick/downtick options, but now this doesn’t either. Why not?
You trust the police – why?
Quite. A useless bunch of halfwits who appear interested only in ‘non-crime hate incidents’.
Please, start making a fuss about the voting system.I’ve been the only, so far, that I know of who’s complaining.
Yeah right, let’s outlaw investigative journalism. That’s really going to strike a blow for freedom.
It seems rather improbable that an entitled star who had sex with thousands of women (by his own admission) while abusing drugs never crossed the line into criminality.
As you’ve clearly set out that you don’t know that world, and don’t want to, it ill behooves you to continue to push the barrow on a topic on which you’re proud of knowing nothing.
So what you’re saying is that you’re only entitled to air your opinion as to Russell Brand’s guilt or innocence if you’ve shagged hundreds of women?
I guess it depends how much you value uninformed opinion?
Is it a problem to point out that someone is proud of not knowing his subject matter?
And do you think he’s going to stop airing his opinion?
This is about his 20th post on this topic.
Get real.
I’ve never murdered anyone or known a murder victim, but consider myself perfectly entitled to air my views about the wickedness of murder.
In that case I’ll get back to you when I have done just that, might take a while mind you. The spirit is willing but the body is a bit more run down than it used to be
Your comment reminds me of some lines from my solitary play, a Jacobean revenge tragedy called The Senseless Counterfeit:-
SULIMAN.
It seems to me that Shakespeare missed a trick.
He might prophetically have writ about
another age of man, the Yoga Creep,
between his Justice and his Pantaloon,
whose shrivelled member, kept from its repose,
held upright by those blue remembered pills,
twitches in the presence of young hippie chicks.
I see right through you, Sleaze. You’re nothing but
a goat who gulls impressionable youth,
an oniony old sage with borrowed cloak.
And you’re Mick Jagger?
Exactly, let’s convict on a supposition.
Criminal conviction and what the general public are free to believe are two entirely separate things. We don’t use criminal standards of evidence in making every day judgements.
While everything else is falling apart around us, one individual’s sex scandal is always an effective distraction. Unemployment rising? Roads and bridges crumbling? Look over here: a shiny object! And another person to whom you can feel superior, no matter what else!
Yeah right. The persistent, gross sexual abuse of women is just like, so unimportant.
Yes. As well as the multiple instances of false rape accusations by vindictive women.
Never enjoyed Brands comedy or TV/film career, but have been drawn towards his new position as counter culture mouthpiece to the point where I think his voice is actually quite important.
Sadly though this article is spot on. No surprise this is in his past and no surprise he was allowed to get away with it while he was making other people money.
The timing is iffy as he is now a hero of mass dissent, but so be it.
To everyone here defending him, be honest with yourselves. The trans lobby back their figure heads no matter what is brought against them and this paper and membership rightfully call them out for blindly defending abhorrent behaviours and individuals.
Don’t pick and choose what behaviour you will accept depending on who’s doing it. At least be consistant.
The decadence of our sexual culture, the responsibility of men and the poison of porn are not in dispute but does ‘sex positive’ feminism have no blame at all? It seems that adult feminist women can do no wrong even if its young girls who suffer. Didn’t De Beauvoir seduce school girls to then pass them onto Sartre?
Yes, but she got his ideas in exchange.
This compounding the crime.
I enjoyed the article but McCartney succumbs to the same approach as the media, which, in short, is to blame Brand for raping under-age women 20+ years ago. Any individual rape is a question for the courts, not public opinion.
The author begins pointing out that it was an open-secret the media should have exposed. They didn’t. Is Brand sexually abusing anyone now? There seems to be no evidence whatsoever. Instead, he is trying to expose the problems with Big Pharma as the author mentions in passing.
To me, it’s an open secret that the side effects of mRNA vaccines are creating harm, maybe killing some young people. That’s the story TODAY. If you want to talk about what the mainstream media will report on, or not.
It’s an easy story to write. Beat up on someone’s actions 20 years ago. Blame the “media”. Makes everyone feel good! I see wrong and I won’t stand for it anymore.
Which arm do you want to inject me with?
Oh dear. You carry on pet.
I can’t abide Russell Brand, an odious and narcissistic individual. I hope the allegations are investigated and if appropriate that he is charged and made to face prosecution. What I resent is the fact that once again he is being made centre of attention which serves only to reinforce his belief that he is important. I wish for him to be ignored and for him to be denied MSM attention but instead to be pursued by the full force of the law.
This is a minefield. Freedom of speech surely allows someone to make serious allegations against another provided they are correct and can be substantiated. Equally in the eyes of the law we are innocent of a crime until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt after due and proper process. To gag the whistleblower is surely wrong but to condemn someone without hearing the evidence is equally so.
Maybe Mr Brand is simply the victim of his own huge celebrity and the kind of sensationalist / accusatory “journalism” in which he has chosen to involve himself.
Whatever, the lid has been lifted and nothing can undo that. This will no doubt rumble on for ages and produce little that is truly good for anyone. Maybe, in the final analysis, it is better not to be a celebrity and certainly not one convinced by one’s own publicity. He who lives by notoriety dies by notoriety?
Investigative journalism is entirely legal. If false accusations are made, Brand is entirely free to sue them.
I think Brand has a brilliant mind and sensual looks, however, his voice and way of speaking are intolerable, nevertheless he seems to like the sound of it.
Perhaps someone should ask him how he will feel if men treat his daughter as he has treated women.
Aside from the sensual looks, I agree. He talks a lot of sense on many topics & asks a lot of right questions but I just can’t get past his voice & mannerisms.
He speaks way way too fast. Like he’s manic. And his 80s glam rock look is creepy. Not sure if he still does that though.
Yes, way too fast. His brain synapses must fire faster than most people. I seem to remember he was bipolar which would explain a lot.
He looks creepy, sleazy, and his “brilliant” mind produces nothing but manic word salad and conspiratorial nonsense. Apparently more than a thousand women have been taken in by him though – so who am I to argue.
A thousand?
He’s clearly not trying.
Even Katy Perry was taken in.
‘Even’? She’s famous but that doesn’t make her bright. But it still staggers me how many supposedly bright people – eg Emily Maitlis – were transfixed by his supposed charisma. I’ve never seen it myself. To me he has all the charisma of a babbling dog bed.
Take one over-sexed male chimpanzee with ADHD, lace its food with amphetamine, hang a medallion round it’s neck ……
You do a good job of criticizing Hollywood and msm, but it seems you left out another possibility. Maybe this falls into the same bucket as the allegations against julian Assange. It’s funny how the liberals crow on about liberation from self restraint but then want to pretend like they care about morals. If Russell is guilty I hope it comes out into the light of day for all to see. If Joe Biden is guilty I hope it comes out for all to see. I think we all agree that Hollywood promotes violence and rape so we should keep writing articles like this pointing out how disgusting the msm, Disney, and Hollywood are. Cheers
If he has broken the law, then let’s hope that he gets an appropriate punishment for it.
But there’s absolutely nothing wrong with a bloke who got fabulously rich and successful getting whacked with his own schtick. The newspapers, BBC, and any number of aggrieved groups or individuals have got every right to call out his bad behaviour, just as he had every right to reap the rewards from it. He generated massive publicity by displaying a persona which is now out of date and out of style. On a smaller scale, something similar happens to most comedians – the public stops laughing, and their routine becomes stale and even embarrassing. When it was fun to be a garrulous naughty boy talking about willies and sexual conquests and drug use, he gained gratification and money from every minute of it. Now, some people are going to get some gratification and rewards from calling him out.
It’s a rough old way to earn a living, entertainment; but nobody is actually forced to take part, are they?
Yes, Amis was correct, these recent exposures are just a culmination of decades of seediness and trash behavior that was acceptable and ‘funny’. And of course, no surprise at the details of this one’s violent actions.
Brand always stuck me as a hyperactive, immature and DIRTY piece of the male gender. I always thought he desperately needed a good shave and a bath. But I prefer my men groomed. And never, ever funny. Just…exhausting to watch and listen to.
Is he a rapist? I wouldn’t be surprised but I am mildly amused that anyone WOULD be shocked by the accusations. His protestations that he was always in a consensual position? Well, I suppose 16 is legal in Britain. But still distasteful for an adult male.
Exactly, he is exhausting to listen to. I can’t imagine being around him. His voice, with the exaggerated cockney accent, is so jarring, like chalk on a blackboard.
Can’t be as bad as listening to or reading the drivel you write.
We have seen far too many false allegations not proved but which leave a smear on the reputations of too many celebrities.. And we have seen too many willing accomplices change their minds when ‘scorned’ and unleash Hell’s fury in retaliation or smell a pot of easy money, or both. I remember a time when guilt was determined in a court of law and innocence was pressumed until that occurred. I’m no fan of RB but I do favour trial by jury in a court of law over trial by cheap media dealers and junkies.
We’ve seen far too many celebrity sexual predators who’ve got away with it. Investigative journalism is entirely legal and a pillar of the free press. It’s only thanks to the Tiimes investigation that the appalling Rochdale mass rapes were actually prosecuted. If the press make false accusations, Brand is free to sue them.
LOL. After the media ignored the problem of child rapes for many years
Russell Brand is now far bigger than the Channel 4 that made him, and which is the State. As of course is the BBC, which tagged along this morning. We remember both of them, and specifically Dispatches and Woman’s Hour, in relation to Julian Assange and Jeremy Corbyn. Just as we remember The Times and the Sunday Times. We do not trust any of them as far as we could spit. Whereas Brand has interviewed Stella Assange, The Times still periodically publishes the rape allegations against her husband as fact. Charlotte Wace has form.
Brand should contest a forthcoming by-election. He has not been arrested, and anyway you can stand for Parliament on bail. If you are a British, Irish or Commonwealth citizen, then you can do so from a prison cell, so long as that cell is not in the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland. Unless one of his Brand’s voiced up and anonymous accusers stood against him, then they never existed. But if one of them did, then the verdict of his peers would be which of him and her took more votes.
When Brand was allegedly doing what he is alleged to have done, then he was living exactly the liberal capitalist lifestyle of those who have turned against him because he has turned against them. No doubt they do indeed keep tabs on celebrity types, lest any of them ever go rogue politically, which, while most unlikely, is demonstrably not impossible. Brand remains badly wrong about, especially, drugs, but at least he no longer takes them, unlike some. I have been calling for decades for the age of consent to be raised to 18 with a grace period for teenagers who were close in age, but that is not in fact the law, and if even the present age were enforced, then you would clear media London and its favoured political salons in one raid.
The people wanting Brand banged up for sleeping with a 16-year-old want 16-year-olds to have the vote, and want much younger children to be given puberty blockers and “gender reassignment” surgery even without parental consent. I used to be uncharacteristically agnostic about votes at 16, but this gender identity business is a dealbreaker. Those behind it have already been putting underage girls on the Pill for 40 years, and probably 60. There is only one possible reason to do that. Thank you, Margaret Thatcher, who fought for it all the way through the courts, although it is has still never been put to a parliamentary vote in relation to England, Wales, or arguably Northern Ireland. It is high time to see a Commons Division List on this.
Your thinking is as bizarrely deranged as that of the charlatan you espouse.
Succinctly put.
The majority of people here are missing the point. Brand’s alleged behavior is, of course, unacceptable, still he is a victim of society (the way he was exposed to hard core sex at a very early age) which encouraged him to become a sex addict that didn’t understand boundaries. Sexual abuse is just condemn when exposed: how can we ever stop sexual abuse while sexual unnatural behavior keep dripping more and more into the mind of our children? The insatiable beast that damage people: porn, has to be removed in the first place.
The evidence will be flimsy, he’ll get off and go into some expensive clinic. He’ll come out clean like a heroin addict and get accolades for his ‘brave’ fight against demons.
At least he hasn’t wimped off into clinical hiding like Huw Edwards.
Who is this moron?
He is a useful distraction from other, equally depraved but better connected monsters. While we are all getting wound up about the thoroughly nasty (and utterly dispensible) Brand we are not looking at the contact book of Jeffrey Epstein, for example.
‘It was ever thus’.
I think Brand is a thoroughly nasty piece of work whose history should be examined. I also completely agree with you about the contact book of Jeffrey Epstein. How come his buddies, and the innumerable visits they made and favours they received, remain entirely free of investigation. Simple answer: they’re rich and influential. The lack of action is utterly shameless.
So many innocent and easily -led young women abounding in our porn-soaked culture, unable to judge the nature of such a publicity-shy young man. What could go wrong?
On russell brand, short of charges, it’s really a matter of “you can’t step in the same river twice”. He was always explicit in who he was and he seems to have grown into something else – the whole witch hunt seems to be a demand for death by shame from the establishment, which a percentage of folk will support the same as they support wars in Ukraine, or Libya, or Iraq – they are easily led. Brand is who he is, charge him or move on.
Russell Brand is a despicable human being, period and despite the vile comments of the ever present Unherd mysoginistic creeps leaping to his defense.
Apocalpse?
It tells you so much about a person’s worldview, I think, when they can casually equate real life statutory rape (Peel, Wyman) with jokes (Boyle, Carr) that clearly do not represent the real view of the comedian and are specifically engineered for comedic value through shock. As much as some people seem to want to wish them to to be for reasons I cannot fathom, words are not violence; violence is. You diminish the power of levity and irony in life and excuse and normalise the brutality when you equivocate this way
No idea why my reply to Gender Critical Dad keeps getting deleted but in reply to your question:
“Which part of forcing one’s p***s so far down someone’s throat, so that they gag and their eyes water is not rape?”
Again, no idea. Also no idea where you got the impression that I said it wasn’t rape but whatever. Perhaps this comment will stay.
deleted
All the women who accused Ron Jeremy were themselves “so steeped in the mores of porn plots” that none of them thought anything of it when he had sex with them on the sets of films he was directing. Like all these phony accusations, they only made an issue of it decades later.
Is this scruffy chap by any chance the son of the “acid throwing” Jo Brand of BBC fame, does anyone know?
No relation. Jo’s a lot funnier.
Brand is not the Messiah, he’s just a very naughty boy.
Don’t see the point in Unherd posting two similarly appaled female authors airing their rage at Brand for something he allegedly did years ago, before the trasformation he’s undergone in recent years. I personally don’t buy into his guru/messiah persona, but that doesn’t make me yell fervently for his head to roll.
Feminists are quick to point the finger at men who have slapped their partners without asking for consent, but usually have nothing to say about women going out in by-the-book prostitute apparel. We live in an over-sexualized culture and, until our notion of sexual freedom is not thoroughly revised, we can’t realistically expect some of the trends described here to be reversed. That said, sex will always have a component of violence or agression, and denying that is another symptom of our age’s refusal to see reality as it plainly is.
If you volunteer to be cooked, you should perhaps not complain when you are cut up and served.
But everyone picks people on the other side to target : there’s been not a word about Dan Wootton from Unherd, for example.
Poor old Unherd is as incurious there as its spelling is wanting. ‘apocalpse’?? anyone ?
As a GB News darling, Wootton has had to be targeted by a Rejoin-the-EU outfit called Byline Times.
What’s Dan Wooten done?
https://bylinetimes.com/2023/07/17/gb-news-star-dan-wootton-unmasked-in-cash-for-sexual-images-catfishing-scandal/