X Close

Russell Brand’s sexual apocalypse He is a creature of the MSM he so despises

(Michael Kovac/WireImage)


September 18, 2023   7 mins

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).

If you’ve been around long enough, however, some things stick in your mind — extraordinary pieces of moral blindness, enabled by the media. One came when Dylan Jones, then editor of GQ, commissioned the late A.A. Gill to write and direct a porn film. What could be more “outrageously funny”, as Jones recalled in 2016, than to see “the country’s best critic immersing himself in the seedy world of hardcore pornography”? Until you read it, that is. Perhaps wisely, the article itself no longer seems to be available online. But it’s included in a 2002 collection of Gill’s journalism. In his other pieces there is room for elegant flourishes of authorial compassion, but not here: the subject-matter — commercial sex — has blotted it out.

The setting is LA, in 1999, and Gill is busy directing his own lurid script. In his own words, a half-Mexican girl called Clarissa – who is “very young and exceedingly nervous” – is being plastered with make-up for her scene, which is with the “truly, madly, deeply hideous” veteran porn actor Ron Jeremy. He’s “funny and he can act” but is considered so unattractive that Clarissa is getting “a $200 premium to do it with Ron”.

Clarissa’s wary of doing porn, but she’s “grateful for the money”. Why, we don’t know: Gill doesn’t ask. Perhaps he senses that her answer might spark the libido-killing onset of sympathy. This is only her second film, and so she isn’t really listening to Gill droning on quasi-ironically “about motivation and the Method”. Gill is contemptuous, describing her as “such a bad actress” and “not bright”. She is “horrified’ when she sees Ron, who — perhaps mercifully — can’t get an erection, and ends up masturbating on to Clarissa’s cheek. After this young girl finally leaves the set in distress, Gill — having orchestrated the entire grotesque scene — follows her out to ask “Are you all right?”. Ever the English gent.

A coda to the article: earlier this year — due to advancing dementia — Ron Jeremy was deemed incompetent to stand trial on serial charges of rape and sexual assault, involving 21 victims aged from 15 to 51. Allegations dated back to 1996, three years before the making of Gill’s Hot House Tales. The comments beneath the news reports were telling: many were sceptical, asking why Jeremy would “need” to do this, given the numerous sexual opportunities afforded by his work. They appeared unable to consider an alternative scenario: that Jeremy was so steeped in the mores of porn plots — and his own star status in the industry — that he had lost sight of any sexual boundaries, in particular those of consent.

These real-life stories aren’t about sex, freely if recklessly exchanged in mutual appreciation: the happy, heady original vision of sexual liberation. Instead, to varying degrees, they’re about porn, ego, power, money, cruelty and humiliation. Some men saw the direction of travel early. In 2001, the novelist Martin Amis also travelled to an LA porn set, not to direct a movie but to write about the dynamics on set. Amis wasn’t exactly a feminist saint: he’d once cut a swathe through literary London, leaving women stung by his infidelities, and was sometimes accused of misogyny in his depiction of female characters. But he wrote about the performers with feeling, and in his brilliant and disturbing article “A Rough Trade” he recognised straightaway where the industry was headed: “the new element is violence”.

The thing that Amis feared most in porn’s endless pushing of boundaries to darker places, its taboo-breaking quest for the “polymorphous perverse”, was what it might speak to in the user: that it might draw out the inner “Mister Monster” in him, triggering arousal at something his value-system knew to be wrong. “Porno, it seems, is a parody of love,” he wrote, “It therefore addresses itself to love’s opposites, which are hate and death. ‘Choke her!’ ‘Spit inside me!’ ‘Break me!’”. Amis had perhaps more reason than most to contemplate where male lust, when fused to violence and cruelty, might take society in general and women in particular: in 1994 he discovered that his 21-year old cousin Lucy Partington, an English student missing for 20 years, had been murdered by the sexual abuser and serial killer Fred West.

In the years since Amis’s article, porn has indeed followed his prophecy. It’s more ubiquitous, more extreme and being absorbed in heavier concentrations at a much earlier age. A report by the Children’s Commissioner earlier this year found that young people were regularly exposed to content in which “pictures of degradation, sexual coercion, aggression and exploitation are commonplace, and disproportionately targeted at teenage girls”. Earlier this year, the Times journalist Helen Rumbelow wrote searingly about a day spent “watching what the kids are watching” on Pornhub. Of the 32 sites deemed “most popular in the UK”, 12 showed men being physically abusive to women, and 11 featured “pseudo-incest” between step-parents and adult step-children or step-siblings. One of the most popular categories is “teens”: in many videos, young-looking girls, officially over 18, are bound, frightened, or shown with restricted airways. It is deeply chilling to think that — barring actual murder — the stuff of mainstream porn is inching ever closer to the practices of 25 Cromwell Street.

There remain many adult men who instinctively understand the line between consent and its refusal, pleasure and abuse. But online porn culture does not, and its effects have already manifested themselves in real life: 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. One third of that percentage said they wouldn’t ask verbal consent for such acts, either before or during sex.

The 48-year-old Brand is perhaps unusual in his generation for the degree to which he was steeped early in prostitution and porn, starting with the stomach-churning way his father introduced him to sex as a teenager, hiring prostitutes for them both in their shared hotel room. But now hardcore porn is schooling children en masse through their smartphones, while much of the “mainstream media” long ago paved its way by demonstrating that — when it came to women, at least — boundaries of legality and taste could frequently be transgressed at no cost to career. Even as Dispatches puts its spotlight on Russell Brand, the painful reality is that future generations of young women will almost certainly experience much more of the behaviour the programme describes, not less. A.A. Gill and Martin Amis are both dead, but it was Amis who saw the danger and called it correctly. The genie’s out of the bottle: Mister Monster is everywhere.

 


Jenny McCartney is a journalist, commentator and author of the novel The Ghost Factory.

mccartney_jenny

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

284 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ewen Mac
Ewen Mac
7 months ago

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.

Last edited 7 months ago by Ewen Mac
Mirax Path
Mirax Path
7 months ago
Reply to  Ewen Mac

Exactly. Wish I could give your post more upvotes.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
7 months ago
Reply to  Ewen Mac

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.

David L
David L
7 months ago
Reply to  Ewen Mac

The Guardian is more outraged by Russel Brand, then it ever was by grooming gangs.

Alan Osband
Alan Osband
7 months ago
Reply to  David L

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’ .

Graham Strugnell
Graham Strugnell
7 months ago
Reply to  Alan Osband

The parents knew where she was going and allowed it to happen. What about their culpability?

Alan Osband
Alan Osband
6 months ago

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 .

Last edited 6 months ago by Alan Osband
Jonathan Weil
Jonathan Weil
7 months ago
Reply to  Alan Osband

…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…?

Alan Osband
Alan Osband
6 months ago
Reply to  Jonathan Weil

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 .

elaine chambers
elaine chambers
7 months ago
Reply to  David L

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.

George Stone
George Stone
7 months ago

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.

CF Hankinson
CF Hankinson
7 months ago
Reply to  George Stone

Could it be it’s almost medieval patriarchy? .. the ownership and control of women?

Alan Osband
Alan Osband
6 months ago
Reply to  George Stone

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 ?

Jane Awdry
Jane Awdry
7 months ago

“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.

Last edited 7 months ago by Jane Awdry
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
7 months ago
Reply to  Ewen Mac

He was a creation of the MSM but then he went off message

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
7 months ago
Reply to  Ewen Mac

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.

elaine chambers
elaine chambers
7 months ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

Agreed Hugh.

jane baker
jane baker
7 months ago
Reply to  Ewen Mac

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.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
7 months ago
Reply to  jane baker

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.

Bryan Dale
Bryan Dale
7 months ago
Reply to  jane baker

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.

Matty D
Matty D
7 months ago
Reply to  Ewen Mac

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.

D Glover
D Glover
7 months ago
Reply to  Matty D

A quick search of the internet turned up this odd quote;

In late 2020, Alice contacted Brand’s literary agent, Angharad Wood, the co-founder of Tavistock Wood, to report the actor’s alleged behaviour.

Why would a girl allegedly exploited as a 16-year old report it to his literary agent? You report crime to the police

Dumetrius
Dumetrius
7 months ago
Reply to  D Glover

Kiss-n-tell book deal ?

elaine chambers
elaine chambers
7 months ago
Reply to  D Glover

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!

D Glover
D Glover
7 months ago

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?

Last edited 7 months ago by D Glover
elaine chambers
elaine chambers
7 months ago
Reply to  D Glover

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!.

Andy Iddon
Andy Iddon
7 months ago

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

CF Hankinson
CF Hankinson
7 months ago
Reply to  D Glover

Less threatening? Protection?

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
7 months ago
Reply to  Matty D

Powerless woman? One that might attract a famous man into bed for a 30 minute fling?

Robbie K
Robbie K
7 months ago
Reply to  Matty D

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.

Edward Seymour
Edward Seymour
7 months ago
Reply to  Matty D

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.

Michael Saxon
Michael Saxon
7 months ago
Reply to  Ewen Mac

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.

elaine chambers
elaine chambers
7 months ago
Reply to  Michael Saxon

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]

Alan Osband
Alan Osband
7 months ago

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 .

Gender Critical Dad
Gender Critical Dad
7 months ago
Reply to  Ewen Mac

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.

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
7 months ago

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.

CF Hankinson
CF Hankinson
7 months ago
Reply to  Coralie Palmer

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.

George Stone
George Stone
7 months ago
Reply to  CF Hankinson

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.

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
7 months ago

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.

Pippa Bassett
Pippa Bassett
7 months ago

I would’ve bitten the f**** That wouldve shown him…

Jonathan Weil
Jonathan Weil
7 months ago
Reply to  Pippa Bassett

Bite down hard enough, you’d have saved a lot of people a lot of grief.

Jonathan Weil
Jonathan Weil
7 months ago

The fact this comment has net negative votes just confirms what a foul cesspit this comments section (with some honourable exceptions) really is.

George Stone
George Stone
7 months ago

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!

Ewen Mac
Ewen Mac
7 months ago

“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.

Ewen Mac
Ewen Mac
7 months ago

deleted

Last edited 7 months ago by Ewen Mac
Robbie K
Robbie K
7 months ago
Reply to  Ewen Mac

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.

David L
David L
7 months ago
Reply to  Ewen Mac

Ironic that the people most outraged by a celebrity having sex with groupies, are the people obsessed with pushing transgederism onto children.

Andrew F
Andrew F
7 months ago
Reply to  Ewen Mac

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?

Mikis Hasson
Mikis Hasson
7 months ago

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

Martin Bollis
Martin Bollis
7 months ago
Reply to  Mikis Hasson

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.

Penny Adrian
Penny Adrian
7 months ago
Reply to  Martin Bollis

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.

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
7 months ago
Reply to  Penny Adrian

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.

Glyn R
Glyn R
7 months ago
Reply to  Coralie Palmer

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.

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
7 months ago
Reply to  Glyn R

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.

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
7 months ago
Reply to  Penny Adrian

Couldn’t agree more. Apparently this lot think investigative journalism is by definition unethical.

Last edited 7 months ago by Coralie Palmer
John Howes
John Howes
7 months ago
Reply to  Martin Bollis

Pity that didn’t apply with Brittan and Bramall or is there a special category for the Left?

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
7 months ago
Reply to  Martin Bollis

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?

Last edited 7 months ago by Coralie Palmer
Glyn R
Glyn R
7 months ago
Reply to  Coralie Palmer

“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.

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
7 months ago
Reply to  Glyn R

It really isn’t. Just look at the comments.

Murray Morison
Murray Morison
7 months ago
Reply to  Mikis Hasson

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.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
7 months ago
Reply to  Murray Morison

This voting system is beyond comprehension. I’m always bitching about it and asking why not a simple up down vote.

Phil Rees
Phil Rees
7 months ago
Reply to  Murray Morison

I just voted it up so why can’t you?

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
7 months ago
Reply to  Phil Rees

Who knows why, that’s the point!

Penny Adrian
Penny Adrian
7 months ago
Reply to  Murray Morison

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.

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
7 months ago
Reply to  Penny Adrian

Well said.

John Howes
John Howes
7 months ago
Reply to  Murray Morison

If you’re looking for civilised society on social media, you are going to have a long wait.

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
7 months ago
Reply to  Mikis Hasson

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.

Stephanie Surface
Stephanie Surface
7 months ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

Background music and roses … why roses?

Penny Adrian
Penny Adrian
7 months ago
Reply to  Mikis Hasson

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.

Roddy Campbell
Roddy Campbell
7 months ago
Reply to  Mikis Hasson

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.

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
7 months ago
Reply to  Roddy Campbell

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.

Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
7 months ago
Reply to  Coralie Palmer

You sound like a very nice person on the other hand.

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
7 months ago

Gosh thanks ; )

Michael Stanford
Michael Stanford
7 months ago
Reply to  Mikis Hasson

Presumably, then, you apply the same argument to defend Jimmy Savile?

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago

SIR Jimmy Savile please!
Was it ever rescinded?

William Murphy
William Murphy
7 months ago

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.

Last edited 7 months ago by William Murphy
Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
7 months ago

Spot on.

Mark Ross
Mark Ross
7 months ago
Reply to  Mikis Hasson

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.

Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
7 months ago
Reply to  Mark Ross

Public opinion is being manipulated by the media though. See the problem?

Last edited 7 months ago by Lesley van Reenen
Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
7 months ago

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.

Sacha C
Sacha C
7 months ago
Reply to  Mikis Hasson

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.

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
7 months ago
Reply to  Sacha C

Well said.

Michael Saxon
Michael Saxon
7 months ago
Reply to  Mikis Hasson

Amen. Se my reply in similar vein to Ewen Mac

John Howes
John Howes
7 months ago
Reply to  Mikis Hasson

Those that live by social media may also die by social media. I’m old school I’d settle for a full Bobbitt.

V T C
V T C
7 months ago
Reply to  Mikis Hasson

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.

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
7 months ago
Reply to  Mikis Hasson

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.

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
7 months ago
Reply to  Mikis Hasson

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.

elaine chambers
elaine chambers
7 months ago
Reply to  Mikis Hasson

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.

Tyler Durden
Tyler Durden
7 months ago

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’.

David L
David L
7 months ago
Reply to  Tyler Durden

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?

Mike Downing
Mike Downing
7 months ago
Reply to  David L

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.

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
7 months ago
Reply to  Mike Downing

Gates is another oceangoing creep. But guess what, that doesn’t mean Brand isn’t.

Glyn R
Glyn R
7 months ago
Reply to  Coralie Palmer

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.

Last edited 7 months ago by Glyn R
Glyn R
Glyn R
7 months ago
Reply to  David L

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.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
7 months ago
Reply to  Glyn R

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.

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
7 months ago
Reply to  David L

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.

Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
7 months ago
Reply to  Coralie Palmer

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.

John Solomon
John Solomon
7 months ago

If they were smart they wouldn’t be brand’s audience.

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
7 months ago

‘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.

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
7 months ago
Reply to  David L

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.

Glyn R
Glyn R
7 months ago
Reply to  David L

Didn’t mean to post here again!

Last edited 7 months ago by Glyn R
Clare Knight
Clare Knight
7 months ago
Reply to  Tyler Durden

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.

Last edited 7 months ago by Clare Knight
Neil Ross
Neil Ross
7 months ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

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!

jane baker
jane baker
7 months ago
Reply to  Neil Ross

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.

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
7 months ago
Reply to  jane baker

Oh gosh well that makes all right then doesn’t it?

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
7 months ago
Reply to  jane baker

What a truly horrible attitude.

David Morley
David Morley
7 months ago
Reply to  Neil Ross

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.

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
7 months ago
Reply to  Neil Ross

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.

Glyn R
Glyn R
7 months ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

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’.

Last edited 7 months ago by Glyn R
David Morley
David Morley
7 months ago
Reply to  Glyn R

I see no sign of “maturing”.

Phil Rees
Phil Rees
7 months ago
Reply to  Tyler Durden

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.

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
7 months ago
Reply to  Phil Rees

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.

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
7 months ago
Reply to  Tyler Durden

Oh gawd. Another half wit who thinks he has ideas. Grow the f up.

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
7 months ago
Reply to  Tyler Durden

Gosh another fan of Brand’s Youtube conspiracy drivel. Thicker than autumn leaves in Valhambrosa. Or possibly two short planks.

R Wright
R Wright
7 months ago

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.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
7 months ago
Reply to  R Wright

The reputations of JFK, MLK, Clinton and Biden remain untarnished notwithstanding similar allegations

Adam Bacon
Adam Bacon
7 months ago

And visitors to Epstein Island have always somehow been treated with complex discretion

jane baker
jane baker
7 months ago
Reply to  R Wright

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.

Lindsay S
Lindsay S
7 months ago
Reply to  jane baker

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!

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
7 months ago
Reply to  R Wright

Last edited 7 months ago by Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
7 months ago
Reply to  R Wright

Russell Brand a political threat. Because he’s got 6 million half witted followers of his conspiracy theory monologues. That is genuinely funny.

Murray Morison
Murray Morison
7 months ago

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.

Robert Eagle
Robert Eagle
7 months ago
Reply to  Murray Morison

No one in their right mind would wish for Brand

Lindsay S
Lindsay S
7 months ago
Reply to  Robert Eagle

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.

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
7 months ago
Reply to  Murray Morison

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.

Robert Eagle
Robert Eagle
7 months ago
Reply to  Murray Morison

A conspiracy theorist speaks

Tiaan M
Tiaan M
7 months ago
Reply to  Robert Eagle

A NPC speaks

Glyn R
Glyn R
7 months ago
Reply to  Murray Morison

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.

Steve White
Steve White
7 months ago

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

Last edited 7 months ago by Steve White
Richard Craven
Richard Craven
7 months ago
Reply to  Steve White

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.

jane baker
jane baker
7 months ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

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.

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
7 months ago
Reply to  jane baker

I agree. Sometimes creeps get things right, but they’re still creeps.

Alan Osband
Alan Osband
7 months ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

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

Last edited 7 months ago by Alan Osband
Richard Craven
Richard Craven
7 months ago
Reply to  Alan Osband

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.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
7 months ago
Reply to  Steve White

Rubbish.

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
7 months ago
Reply to  Steve White

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.

Phil Rees
Phil Rees
7 months ago
Reply to  Steve White

He has a small army of followers who completely agree with his conspiracy theories and will therefore follow him whatever.

Mr Sketerzen Bhoto
Mr Sketerzen Bhoto
7 months ago
Reply to  Steve White

If only Epstein had been so rigorously investigated by journalists when he lived.

(The one exception being the journalist from the Miami Herald)

jane baker
jane baker
7 months ago
Reply to  Steve White

Theyre coming for us all.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
7 months ago
Reply to  jane baker

Don’t flatter yourself.

Tiaan M
Tiaan M
7 months ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

FO 77th brigade troll

Ken Charman
Ken Charman
7 months ago
Reply to  Steve White

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.

Robert Eagle
Robert Eagle
7 months ago
Reply to  Steve White

Alleged – and true

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
7 months ago

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.”

Mangle Tangle
Mangle Tangle
7 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Are you worried about the mass exposure of children and youth teens to pornography?

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
7 months ago
Reply to  Mangle Tangle

Sure I am, along with a million other things today’s youth are exposed to that I wasn’t as a child.

Dumetrius
Dumetrius
7 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

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.

Last edited 7 months ago by Dumetrius
Clare Knight
Clare Knight
7 months ago
Reply to  Dumetrius

How do you know that?!

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
7 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

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.

Last edited 7 months ago by Clare Knight
Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
7 months ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

I find it hard to believe 70% of people enjoy sex involving degradation of their partner.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
7 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

It’s not “people” it’s men.

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
7 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Staggering though you may find the concept, your finding it hard to believe something doesn’t mean it’s not true.

David Morley
David Morley
7 months ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

Apparently the men never asked for permission.

As in “please may I spit in your face now dear.”

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
7 months ago
Reply to  David Morley

Don’t be silly.

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
7 months ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

He isn’t. He’s highlighting just how gross the behaviour is. Gross enough that it shouldn’t be happening, full stop.

Mirax Path
Mirax Path
7 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

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.

Aphrodite Rises
Aphrodite Rises
7 months ago
Reply to  Mirax Path

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.

Last edited 7 months ago by Aphrodite Rises
jane baker
jane baker
7 months ago

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.

Leonel SIlva Rocha
Leonel SIlva Rocha
7 months ago

Why are you afraid to write the word Nazi? Has it also become a taboo?

Saul D
Saul D
7 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

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.

jane baker
jane baker
7 months ago
Reply to  Saul D

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.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
7 months ago
Reply to  jane baker

That’s a decidedly boring plan.

starkbreath
starkbreath
7 months ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

Sounds like a great plan for sucking all the life out of sex.

David Morley
David Morley
7 months ago
Reply to  Saul D

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?

David L
David L
7 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

That paragon of truth. The BBC. Lol

D Glover
D Glover
7 months ago
Reply to  David L

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.

Penny Adrian
Penny Adrian
7 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

I found that hard to believe as well.

Roddy Campbell
Roddy Campbell
7 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

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.

Saul D
Saul D
7 months ago

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?

michael harris
michael harris
7 months ago

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.

M Doors
M Doors
7 months ago

“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.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
7 months ago
Reply to  M Doors

This will not even cause a ripple in his YouTube following.

M Doors
M Doors
7 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

No doubt, unless YouTube bow to pressure & shut his channel down.

Jane Eyre
Jane Eyre
7 months ago

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.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
7 months ago
Reply to  Jane Eyre

Exactly.

Dominic A
Dominic A
7 months ago
Reply to  Jane Eyre

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.

Albert McGloan
Albert McGloan
7 months ago
Reply to  Jane Eyre

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.

David Morley
David Morley
7 months ago
Reply to  Albert McGloan

Hence why some feminists say all heterosexual intercourse is ‘rape’.

Or at least they did until the power dynamics of gay and lesbian relationships bubbled to the surface.

jane baker
jane baker
7 months ago
Reply to  Jane Eyre

A lot of sex is about power,violence and control. A lot of relationships are about power,violence and control.

David Morley
David Morley
7 months ago
Reply to  jane baker

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.

Sacha C
Sacha C
7 months ago
Reply to  Jane Eyre

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.

David Morley
David Morley
7 months ago

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. One third of that group said they wouldn’t ask consent for such acts, either before or during sex.

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.

Tony Taylor
Tony Taylor
7 months ago

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.

Mirax Path
Mirax Path
7 months ago
Reply to  Tony Taylor

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.

Last edited 7 months ago by Mirax Path
Glyn R
Glyn R
7 months ago
Reply to  Tony Taylor

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.

Last edited 7 months ago by Glyn R
Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
7 months ago
Reply to  Glyn R

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.

peter clark
peter clark
7 months ago
Reply to  Glyn R

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

Glyn R
Glyn R
7 months ago
Reply to  peter clark

Read the lyrics perhaps?

Frank McCusker
Frank McCusker
7 months ago

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. 

Last edited 7 months ago by Frank McCusker
Albert McGloan
Albert McGloan
7 months ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

On the contrary, she’s the CEO of the shelter and is determined to make sure transgender women have full access to it.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
7 months ago
Reply to  Albert McGloan

Not true.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
7 months ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

Not true.

starkbreath
starkbreath
7 months ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

Spot on.

David Morley
David Morley
7 months ago

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.

Neil Ross
Neil Ross
7 months ago

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!

jane baker
jane baker
7 months ago
Reply to  Neil Ross

Yes,several of his harem came over as extremely stupid.

Sacha C
Sacha C
7 months ago
Reply to  Neil Ross

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.

David Morley
David Morley
7 months ago
Reply to  Sacha C

The level of ignorance on this is astounding, the majority of these comments come from thought processes a child would be ashamed of. 

And I’m afraid you’ve just made the situation one comment worse!

starkbreath
starkbreath
7 months ago
Reply to  Sacha C

Hate men much?

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
7 months ago

Brand gets the full treatment. But grooming gangs? Epstein Island? Tumbleweed.

Petra Bueskens
Petra Bueskens
7 months ago

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.

David Morley
David Morley
7 months ago
Reply to  Petra Bueskens

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.

Last edited 7 months ago by David Morley
Nicholas Rowe
Nicholas Rowe
7 months ago

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.

Last edited 7 months ago by Nicholas Rowe
N Satori
N Satori
7 months ago
Reply to  Nicholas Rowe

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:

But flippancy is the best of all. [..] Among flippant people the Joke is always assumed to have been made. No one actually makes it; but every serious subject is discussed in a manner which implies that they have already found a ridiculous side to it.

Mike SampleName
Mike SampleName
7 months ago

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”.

Robert Eagle
Robert Eagle
7 months ago

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.

David Morley
David Morley
7 months ago
Reply to  Robert Eagle

Totally agree with your assessment. I’ve met plenty of women who also seem taken in though. Gullibility knows no gender.

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
7 months ago

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.

Last edited 7 months ago by Richard Craven
Mr Sketerzen Bhoto
Mr Sketerzen Bhoto
7 months ago

I don’t know much about Brand but I know a monstering when I see one.

Robert Eagle
Robert Eagle
7 months ago

Can you monster a monster?

John Riordan
John Riordan
7 months ago

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.

Last edited 7 months ago by John Riordan
Edward Seymour
Edward Seymour
7 months ago

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.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
7 months ago
Reply to  Edward Seymour

Well said.

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
7 months ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

Or possibly not.

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
7 months ago
Reply to  Edward Seymour

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.

xxx xxxxx
xxx xxxxx
7 months ago

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.

Last edited 7 months ago by xxx xxxxx
Phil Rees
Phil Rees
7 months ago

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?

Last edited 7 months ago by Phil Rees
UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
7 months ago
Reply to  Phil Rees

You trust the police – why?

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
7 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

Quite. A useless bunch of halfwits who appear interested only in ‘non-crime hate incidents’.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
7 months ago
Reply to  Phil Rees

Please, start making a fuss about the voting system.I’ve been the only, so far, that I know of who’s complaining.

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
7 months ago
Reply to  Phil Rees

Yeah right, let’s outlaw investigative journalism. That’s really going to strike a blow for freedom.

Arthur G
Arthur G
7 months ago

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.

Dumetrius
Dumetrius
7 months ago
Reply to  Arthur G

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.

Last edited 7 months ago by Dumetrius
Richard Craven
Richard Craven
7 months ago
Reply to  Dumetrius

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?

Dumetrius
Dumetrius
7 months ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

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.

Last edited 7 months ago by Dumetrius
Richard Craven
Richard Craven
7 months ago
Reply to  Dumetrius

I’ve never murdered anyone or known a murder victim, but consider myself perfectly entitled to air my views about the wickedness of murder.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
7 months ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

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

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
7 months ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

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.

Arthur G
Arthur G
7 months ago
Reply to  Dumetrius

And you’re Mick Jagger?

Frank McCusker
Frank McCusker
7 months ago
Reply to  Arthur G

Exactly, let’s convict on a supposition.

Arthur G
Arthur G
7 months ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

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.

Duane M
Duane M
7 months ago

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!

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
7 months ago
Reply to  Duane M

Yeah right. The persistent, gross sexual abuse of women is just like, so unimportant.

Tiaan M
Tiaan M
7 months ago
Reply to  Coralie Palmer

Yes. As well as the multiple instances of false rape accusations by vindictive women.

Kevin Palmer
Kevin Palmer
7 months ago

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.

Ian Cooper
Ian Cooper
7 months ago

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?

David Morley
David Morley
7 months ago
Reply to  Ian Cooper

Didn’t De Beauvoir seduce school girls to then pass them onto Sartre?

Yes, but she got his ideas in exchange.

starkbreath
starkbreath
7 months ago
Reply to  David Morley

This compounding the crime.

Max Rottersman
Max Rottersman
7 months ago

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?

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
7 months ago
Reply to  Max Rottersman

Oh dear. You carry on pet.

John Dewhirst
John Dewhirst
7 months ago

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.

Malcolm Webb
Malcolm Webb
7 months ago

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?

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
7 months ago
Reply to  Malcolm Webb

Investigative journalism is entirely legal. If false accusations are made, Brand is entirely free to sue them.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
7 months ago

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.

Last edited 7 months ago by Clare Knight
M Doors
M Doors
7 months ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

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.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
7 months ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

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.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
7 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

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.

David Morley
David Morley
7 months ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

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.

Dumetrius
Dumetrius
7 months ago
Reply to  David Morley

A thousand?

He’s clearly not trying.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
7 months ago
Reply to  David Morley

Even Katy Perry was taken in.

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
7 months ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

‘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.

David Morley
David Morley
7 months ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

Take one over-sexed male chimpanzee with ADHD, lace its food with amphetamine, hang a medallion round it’s neck ……

si mclardy
si mclardy
7 months ago

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

Simon Neale
Simon Neale
7 months ago

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?

Marissa M
Marissa M
7 months ago

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.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
7 months ago
Reply to  Marissa M

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.

Tiaan M
Tiaan M
7 months ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

Can’t be as bad as listening to or reading the drivel you write.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
7 months ago

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.

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
7 months ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

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.

Tiaan M
Tiaan M
7 months ago
Reply to  Coralie Palmer

LOL. After the media ignored the problem of child rapes for many years

David Lindsay
David Lindsay
7 months ago

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.

Robert Eagle
Robert Eagle
7 months ago
Reply to  David Lindsay

Your thinking is as bizarrely deranged as that of the charlatan you espouse.

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
7 months ago
Reply to  Robert Eagle

Succinctly put.

S Bursby
S Bursby
7 months ago

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.

James Kirk
James Kirk
7 months ago

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.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago

Who is this moron?

John Solomon
John Solomon
7 months ago

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.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  John Solomon

‘It was ever thus’.

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
7 months ago
Reply to  John Solomon

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.

Geraldine Kelley
Geraldine Kelley
7 months ago

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?

Andy R
Andy R
7 months ago

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.

Danielle Treille
Danielle Treille
7 months ago

Russell Brand is a despicable human being, period and despite the vile comments of the ever present Unherd mysoginistic creeps leaping to his defense.

Dumetrius
Dumetrius
7 months ago

Apocalpse?

peter clark
peter clark
7 months ago

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

Ewen Mac
Ewen Mac
7 months ago

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.

Ewen Mac
Ewen Mac
7 months ago

deleted

Bryan Dale
Bryan Dale
7 months ago

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.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago

Is this scruffy chap by any chance the son of the “acid throwing” Jo Brand of BBC fame, does anyone know?

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
7 months ago

No relation. Jo’s a lot funnier.

Robert Eagle
Robert Eagle
7 months ago

Brand is not the Messiah, he’s just a very naughty boy.

Nanda Kishor das
Nanda Kishor das
7 months ago

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.

Dumetrius
Dumetrius
7 months ago

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.

Last edited 7 months ago by Dumetrius
jane baker
jane baker
7 months ago
Reply to  Dumetrius

What’s Dan Wooten done?