Trying to understand Brand supporters

I haven't reread it bombastix as I lent it my Mum so it's probably been put in a charity shop since and is now in a bin somewhere but you appear to be consumed with me finding it to be both bleak and honest when I read it seventeen years ago.
It was bleak. Bloody depressingly bleak. Porn exposed, child abused, addiction addled bleak. That wasn't some made up shit. His father was a wanker, he was also sexually abused, his lows and what he'd do/what fellow addicts did for a hit was abhorrent and parts of the lows were Dickensian.
It is completely possible to be a victim and a culprit at the same time.
Only child, his mum got cancer three times, he was sexually abused by a tutor, his relationship with his macho stepdad was dodgy as fuck (taking him to Thailand and ordering him a prostitute at 16) his problems with crack, heroin, cutting himself, sex, food, ADHD.
The other impression I had was how brutal, raw and unflattering it was (for someone with such a huge ego) he came across as a cunt because he was acting like one. It was warts-and-all because he put in so much detail in there (that would count against him and has been used against him). Hoisted by his own petard, his own words and anecdotes pored over, to help get the evidence needed to nail him.
Seventeen years later, of course it's going to read differently but at the time, it won the Biography of the year at the 2008 British Book Awards. I am not stupid thanks, I have two degrees, read a lot, try and see both sides and the good in people. Brand donated money to charities, helped people kick drugs and paid for others' rehab, created and later donated a non-profit café, and protested alongside families due to be evicted.
He is also potentially a rapist, a bully and a liar and has allegedly done some awful, awful things for which I hope he is punished through due process.

If anything I think "everything is a conspiracy" types are useful to the ephemeral "powers that be" anyway. It means serious concerns (government overreach in the pandemic), undermining of democratic institutions, pharmaceutical companies and puberty blockers etc, are hard to talk about without "lol Jewish space lazers, microchips in vaccines" etc etc. None of that's Brands fault as such but it's one of the reasons properly researched investigative journalism can't be replaced by people with YouTube channels shooting ideas into the void. It's why the decline of proper journalism is such a loss (and why I think people that take the effort to really investigate.issues are vilified). Brand never investigated stuff so much as gave his opinion, called out hypocracies, sometimes brought up less talked about news stories. Which is fine as it goes but really not a threat. In order to be "on to something" you have to actually do journalism.

2nd half fair enough - but his assertions about Brand upsetting "big government, big pharma and Bil Gates" with his youtube channel is more than a bit crackers. You can read about everything he claims the MSM is not reporting in The Economist and The Financial Times. Doubt any "big powerful people" knew anything about his youtube grift before this. It's not like he's been fostering a movement, campaigns etc. All his acolytes do is watch more Russel Brand videos.

Andrew Neill made a good remark about Brand. He said it was a British failing that we elevated such talentless people, like Brand.

Brand is incredibly crude. He's always been like that. What does it say about us, I wonder? Nothing much good. I mean his books are awful and mean and crude.

But apparently it's bleak and honest. Nothing of the kind. He conned a lot of stupid people.

I read the autobiography "I'm such a loveable cunty wunty" to paraphrase another poster at the weekend (partner is a compulsive book hoarder; had bought it years ago from a charity shop but never read it).

All of the disgusting behaviour is there, in plain sight, but he also describes the sex and drug addiction programmes he's been on. He got away with it at the time because he was charismatic and enabled by wider culture; he got away with it up until recently because he successfully rebranded himself as a survivor of dark times dispensing wisdom only available to those who have struggled with demons. He's very skilled at making it all about himself; it's the only thing he's good at.

Think that's bad - I've just found myself agreeing with Nigel Farage https://youtube.com/shorts/XN69szEfC1o?si=fvUt9joaO3fHN4Q-

I think thinks have changed a lot since #MeToo.

*In the 2000s Angus Deayton was sacked from HIGNFY after having an affair, using prostitutes and taking drugs. John Leslie was sacked over allegations he raped Ulrika Johnson. Hugh Grant's career took a huge hit after he was exposed using prostitutes.

I don't think any of that would happen today. We are far too mired in patriarchal "false accusations"/"innocent until proven guilty" bullshit*

Kevin Spacey was cancelled immediately/fired or replaced in all projects
Morgan Freeman was let go from visa card campaign after allegations
Tim Westwood stepped down from Capital Xtra
Phillip Schofield resigned from Good Morning
Huw Edwards has been suspended
Russell Brand has had charities disassociate/demonetised channel
Kutcher/Kunis had to step down from abuse charity after their character reference for a convicted rapist

So there is accountability albeit at least two of the above allegedly got pay off/suspension pay

The abuse is still rife now. That's my point. Nothing has improved so the whole "it was 20 years ago" is a deflection from the issue.

I recently rewatched Buffy the Vampire Slayer with my dd. I loved it in the late 90s.
Today though? The way Xander leers at girls? Yeah, standards HAVE changed.
See also Hugh Hefner and the playboy mansion - also big in the late 90/early 00s. Bums being pinched, wolf whistling etc etc. there has been a change in what people think is acceptable (and rightly so!)

I think the biggest change is coercive control becoming a crime. Obviously it's always been bad, but I remember in the 00s that as long as you said yea, even if coerced and given no option, was considered consensual sex. I am glad that is no longer the case

Savile was still at large in 2000, Max Clifford was still controlling reputations, all of the Yewtree abusers were still BBC darlings. With hindsight, Dayton’s punishment looks almost performative - scapegoating - to make it look like the Beeb gave a shit while all the abuse was still rife.

at the moment he has paparazzi outside his house 24/7. if he had gone to the post office it would've been reported let alone police station.

I'm wondering what you think has changed in the last 10-20 years ago?
I'm middle aged and i think things have gone backwards in terms of women's rights since the 2000s. As demonstrated by the "trial by media" posts.

In the 2000s Angus Deayton was sacked from HIGNFY after having an affair, using prostitutes and taking drugs. John Leslie was sacked over allegations he raped Ulrika Johnson. Hugh Grant's career took a huge hit after he was exposed using prostitutes.

I don't think any of that would happen today. We are far too mired in patriarchal "false accusations"/"innocent until proven guilty" bullshit

It's the same offence! Jesus. Sexual offending and the law has been governed by the same law since 2003.

Wow. You can see why Brand got away with his open misogyny. Apparently it is bleak and honest and he has changed because he said so.

The MO of many a sex offender. Really depressing to read.

Also, these were 10-20years ago. And I don't think you should judge a 2000's misjudgment but a 2023 standard.

Sexual assault standards haven't changed in that time.

Fuck, I've agreed with ash twice in a month 🤯

Exposé fatigue

Schofield/spacey/Huw Edwards and now RB. It's like well "who next?". especially since some of them seem to be made into a much bigger deal then they actually are (like Huw, two consenting adults etc).
There has been no complaint to the police before.

Also, these were 10-20years ago. And I don't think you should judge a 2000's misjudgment but a 2023 standard. I made a few unsavoury decisions back in the early 2000s when I was young and struggling with undiagnosed mental health. I would hate for those misjudgments to be brought up and destroy my now professional job, home and family. I'm not the person I was back then, and I think that's the same with RB (don't like him though, but I don't agree with cancel culture)

So many posters chirping in with whether they did or didn’t like Brand. Your opinion is irrelevant!

The only similarities between Saville, Harris and Brand is that they’re celebrities. Do not lump Brand in with those two just because he’s also famous

Chris Evans is friends with RB IRL, he interviewed him on the show and they talked about their friendship.

podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-chris-evans-show-with-cinch/id1450650136?i=1000551550641

Why do you expect to know if the police have spoken to him? Some sort of rolling news service?

i'm not a supporter of him, don't watch any of his stuff and he's really a none entity to me- however he's not been arrested. Police haven't made a case- trial by media and all this witch hunting is not an effective justice system. Why haven't police even interviewed him yet??? it says a lot really

You will not know whether there were many complaints. The police are not obliged to tell the public, Brand wouldn't, and the woman would have not gone further to say much.

He is scumbag. Bleak yes, honest? Really doubt that any celebrity biography is that. People are too gullible really.

All that said, I remain surprised that in the last week you haven't had hundreds of complaints as happened with Saville. I believe only a couple more have officially come forward hence the press printing anything and everything they can from past shows, appearances and from colleagues in a bid for more clickbait (that in itself doesn't undermine the women's testimonies but it does show the media's motives and hypocrisy in being all over it now when all these appearances were in the public domain).