I worked at Channel 4 during the Russell Brand era. Ask me anything

[Channel4er]

I've thought long and hard about whether do do this AMA because people will probably be after salacious titbits which I neither have nor am interested in however there's been a lot of talk about Channel 4's role in the Brand affair and I thought I might be able to shed some light on what the culture at Channel 4 was actually like around that time.

In order to remain anonymous there may be some questions I can't answer. I've name changed but am a long standing MNer.

This one!

Just announced that he no longer has any connection with either buissness.

It’s interesting how many people are saying how unsurprising it is. Yawning all over the internet about how boring it is because we already knew he was a womaniser, as if that’s the same thing as allegedly forcing your penis down a 16 year old’s throat. It’s a subtle dig at the alleged victims, like saying der, did you not realise…

well EXACTLY

Watch the youtube Time Radio interviews with the women investigators. I think you'll change your mind about their integrity and whether they care about his victims.

He had the opportunity to respond within the programme. And have you not heard of libel laws? Also "absolutely a țrial by media" is utter nonsense - that would involve a verdict and a sentence. How about you just watch the programme, read the articles and if you find yourself making a judgement - that's on you, it has no further impact.

I worked at C4 as a press officer, Brand was in the pay of the production co Endemol (now Banijay). At that time, the culture at C4, and of many other broadcasters, was light years away from what it is now, particularly post the 'Me Too' movement. Lewd, sexist jokes etc. were (as you say) very much part of the cultural environment - as was sex, drugs and rock n roll! Russell Brand was always known to push the boundaries and people loved it. Many women fancied him, hence all the shags he so proudly boasted about.

Times have now changed (thankfully) and we wait to see whether trial by media will change his fortunes. Due legal process should be the way forward.

Why? All the evidence presented will be admissible in court. If anything jeopardises a fair trial it will be his bonkers claim that it's all part of a grand 'global elite' witchunt.

they can surely have a trial without a jury

Why wouldn't be receive a fair trail? Kevin Spacey did.

Anyone claiming he wouldn't receive a fair trail knows very little about how courts work.

Exactly cosmic and swimsong. We’ve had this thing called a free press for a while now. The criminal justice system is used to dealing with it. How do people think it normally copes with high profile cases? And even not so high profile cases have things broadcast and written about them pre-trial and even pre-charge.

Someone on the other thread I’m on asked the excellent question, why does no-one bat an eyelid about Rogue Traders? I’m pretty sure they feature exposés of criminals who haven’t yet been convicted. I get the feeling the people frothing about due process don’t do it about all these other cases.

Someone else on the other thread thinks that no-one’s name should be all over the papers until they’ve been convicted . Imagine how ironic it would be if we were to bring in rules so tightly restricting free speech as that, prompted by allegations about RB of all people, a person who practically lives and breathes ‘free speech’!

Rhiannon Lucy Coslett article where she describes a comedian saying he wanted to carry out an acid attack on a woman

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/sep/21/2000s-lad-culture-russell-brand-hindsight-women-misogyny

Anyone know who it was?

Meanwhile
https://twitter.com/bindelj/status/1704763214808879415?s=46&t=WmicpoX7ESs8zVywhAr6Sg

What's so odd about this piece, with Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett bemoaning the fact that "some did nothing" at the time of Russell Brand's reign is what she and her Vagenda pal did(n't) do at the time he was guest editing the New Statesman. They both declined to be part of an open letter objecting to Brand's sexism and were involved in the edition. Funny this Stalinist revisionism that so many virtue signallers are taking part in.

I really can't blame them. He was powerful, women who spoke up were dismissed as screechy harridans. How many of us would risk our careers and professional reputation?

Even Germaine Greer was smitten

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/tvandradioblog/2007/jan/15/russellbrandthebyronforou

Though to be fair she does suss it's a masquerade and that his priapism as mentioned elsewhere here on Mumsnet is a sign of a crap shag

Holy shit.

Times columnist pretty unsparing about how entranced the Graun was.

The merest whisper of racism or homophobia and Brand would have been shunned. But he was only offensive about women, so wilful blindness melded with political expediency and those who pride themselves in defending the vulnerable gave a cunning abuser a free pass.

The Jimmy Carr anecdote is horrendous

https://archive.ph/QrqZw

Was Germaine Greer smitten?
I’m not sure I get that at all from that piece of writing, it’s a kind of thinly veiled piss take to me , even down to calling him the Byron of our times .

totes – just read it and it’s a take down, albeit a gentle one

The BTL comments are worth a browse

“He has the ability to be quite funny at times,however,his constant references to his "ball bag/dick sack" spheres of reference is not only puzzling but sad.”

@Lalgarh

The merest whisper of racism or homophobia and Brand would have been shunned. But he was only offensive about women, so wilful blindness melded with political expediency

Obviously trivialising sexism/misogyny is still very much a thing today, everywhere (literally a product of the same sexism / misogyny / patriarchal power dynamics, which are endemic in every family & household). If one good thing comes out of this, I hope it’s that misogyny begins to be taken more seriously and treated with the same gravity as racism (hey, you never know).

Actually that article is pretty right on especially
"Befuddled journalists caught from each other a strange compulsion to refer to Brand's "carnal magnetism"
it’s like a perplexed commentary on the zeitgeist . I also find it fascinating that she comments on his feminine hips, they really stand out to me too 🤣.

@ehupo7 Totally. I was reading a trash article on Paris Fury’s latest baby in the daily Mail. The comments (and I shouldn’t have expected better) but lots of people commenting that she must now have a wizards sleeve for a vagina, etc etc. Disgusting comments that shouldn’t get past moderation, just as racist or homophobic comments wouldn’t be tolerated. But here we are ,in 2023 , and the misogyny is still rife.

Flashing his ickle dinkle at a woman in a Los Angeles office then BANTZING about it with his sycophant co-host sidekick Matt Morgan on his Radio 2 show.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66882644

Hello Gloria Allred! Can you do us a civil wivel case!

Matt Morgan was mentioned on the dispatches programme. He now grifts in obscurity with a shit comedy podcast, and of course has a fulsome beard
https://open.spotify.com/show/7zG2ouTgYGQXqzQbv1q5PF

I would say a case like the murder of Sarah Everard by the vile Wayne Couzens is an example that we really aren't any further on with the fight against misogyny.

I think Coslett,,'s article is pretty out of touch with the real world.

How can anyone actually read Greer's article and think she was smitten with Brand..?

@Dropthedonkey possibly a sign of the times in a society used to ‘liking’ headlines on Instagram without reading the content or following the ‘link in bio’?

Well

https://www.google.com/amp/s/metro.co.uk/2023/09/21/russell-brand-investigated-jimmy-savile-cops-19533579/amp/