Trying to understand Brand supporters

[mids2019]

I am trying to understand why some people are actually trying to support Russell Brand.

I think a lot of it is down to disappointment that a figure they may have once liked has brought himself into disgrqce. My partner liked Michael Jackson and the accusations by the two men about him at the time really did disillusion them about her youthful admirations; Brand is not Jackson but there may be a similar thought process.

I think it also makes people feel 'who's next' and realise that the media has been adept at covering the behaviour of big star names (Schofiled, Spacey, etc.). Possibly people would rather have

the idea of Brand being innocent than let go of cherished views that we a celebrity circuit of people who are 'the good guys'.

I have noticed that a lot of the celeb circuit in radio and television are a little reluctant to speak about the subjects Brand has brought up. A few programs have touched upon the topic tangentially and it obviously makes the main news but a lot of the morning DJs such as Chris Evans.etc haven't mentioned it all on their shows which I feel is quite strange. It all lends itself to a view that the celebs who we all invest in are fallible and we could be waking up one morning to find another has a strong of allegations against them.

Possibly there is part of human nature that allows the elite to have led way iin their behaviour towards others?.There have been historical cases where rich men (aristocracy) have basically had the right to assault lower class women and maybe this is a modern extension of this?

There are obviously the misogynist conspiracy theorists but I think there are also others that may be looking to defend the antics of men in the 2000s as they were of that period and they don't particular like the whole era being stained in their memories. There are also a few that think Brand is being judged by 2023 standards when a lot of the alleged crimes happened in the 2000s where although the law was the same , in my opinion, the culture wasn't and Brand was maybe an extreme of behaviour shown by many men.

It is an interesting question.

I can think of some reasons maybe…

a) there was a huge group of people who were ok with this and stood by watching him behave like he did (including having sex with a 16 year old - don’t get me started on that). Then suddenly people turned on him. Why now ? Why are they suddenly turning on him when he seems to have changed both his political views and because a monogamous father is two/three?

b) trial by media is uncomfortable. We don’t know. We are just fairly certain.

c) connected to this. There are a huge amount of other sex crimes against women that media not are writing about. Many involving “sacred castes” and quite possibly much worse.

d) people being afraid (mainly men) that they themselves will be called out for creepy behaviour. Things happened in the 2000s which wouldn’t happen now.

e) connected with a), his wife is heavily pregnant. Regardless of the fact that she probably knew a lot of this, regardless of the fact that he may have changed now, she has hormones all over the place her husband is all over the papers and she must be beyond stressed.

These are the arguments I have heard. I can have sympathy for some of them but fundamentally RB seems to have been an absolutely awful person. And now the chickens have come home.

maybe people feel stupid as well? He really did tell people what he was (suggested a sex party for a 16 year old, I mean what was that), he basically harassed women on stage and people wanted to believe that it was some kind of act. I mean really??? This guy was not hiding, he was proud over what he was.

I'm no fan of RB nor am I an apologist for rape and sexual assault, I do take issue with the trial by media aspects and cancel culture.

Some of the past behaviour of RB clearly should have been curbed by those employing him. They put media exposure and, ultimately, money above respectful standards of behaviour. The BBC and the production companies C4 contracted gave him a public platform and he behaved appallingly - I'm talking about the Andrew Sachs phone call and other incidents of which there is recorded evidence I have heard.

Is it right that YouTube have stopped him monetising his channel with them? I'm not sure it is without criminal conviction. With social media anyone can have a platform, the due diligence undertaken is nil and reporting mechanisms are weak to useless. There will be others earning money from YouTube who shouldn't be able to.

With great power comes great responsibility. Time and again famous people have used their celebrity to exploit others. Whether those they exploited realise they were indeed being exploited is moot - look at the "groupies" of the 60s and 70s as an example. Some people appear desperate to be famous, even by association, and you have to wonder why.

I don’t support him and have always disliked him. But trial by media without even arrest? And I know all the issues with the police atm. Still.

I don't know, I always feel it's a bit suspicious when they come forward so many years later and then a bunch of them come forward at the same time. But then the same thing happened with Harvey Weinstein and that was true.

A few programs have touched upon the topic tangentially and it obviously makes the main news but a lot of the morning DJs such as Chris Evans.etc haven't mentioned it all on their shows which I feel is quite strange.

Which Chris Evans? Chris Evans the radio presenter who, aged 35, married an 18 year old in 2001?

Yeah it’s really strange that he isn’t passing comment on a former radio presenter who had a 16 year old girlfriend when he was in his 30s back in the 2000s.

Didn't he frequently greet people in his office in the nude? Or in his pants?

Agree with much of the above. The online love is because he has tapped into the antivax crowd and the Andrew Tate followers of which there are 100s of 1000s. They are perfect because they will on mass arrive and defend things it's quite cult like. Particularly when there is a trial by media. They have fallen for his anti establishment hero bullshit. They are in an echo chamber of there own beliefs so will be seeing endless reasons why he didn't do it. It if he did it was the girls fault for various misogynistic reasons.

On his show apparently. I suspect he's keeping quiet because maybe he thinks he's next.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Chris+Evans+getting+nude+at+the+bbc&sca_esv=567797162&rlz=1CDGOYI_enGB784GB784&hl=en-GB&ei=ZIQOZdXwF4-FhbIPspyTiA4&oq=Chris+Evans+getting+nude+at+the+bbc&gs_lp=EhNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwIiNDaHJpcyBFdmFucyBnZXR0aW5nIG51ZGUgYXQgdGhlIGJiY0inF1D_CVidEHAAeACQAQCYAZ8BoAHYA6oBAzMuMrgBA8gBAPgBAeIDBBgBIEGIBgE&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp

It's funny how these kinds of crimes aren't to be mentioned until there's been a legal trial, yet all sorts of others are fair game.

It's an area people seem loathe to judge, yet have no trouble judging the behaviour of the victims.

I wonder if it's partly the not my Nigel effect, people are uncomfortable with how this was allowed to happen and how many men would if they could.

Oh sorry, that was mean as a response to LoobiJee about Chris Evans.

Some good points above.

I think the trial by media aspect has been covered in other threads but ultimately there is a glut of evidence of extremely poor behaviour that has slipped into sexual misconduct and assault. I think there is a degree of embarrassment that this was not investigated at the time and points to a culture at least in the media that such behaviour was acceptable. I think 'lad' culture was to blame and actually I do think we may find Brand was not the only guy who behaved like this (not that is an excuse).

I think it's a good point there are probably those who feel that Brand has somehow redeemed himself and that the slew of allegations are somehow unfair given that he has a stable family life with children. However given fact Brands past behaviour wasn't in reality a secret his wife must have had a notion that one day this exact scenario may have been a possibility.

I think the fact that to some mind a Brand is attractive and charismatic (as opposed to say a Savile of Weinstein) skews public perception and gains him perhaps unwarranted sympathy.

I also think that as in any industry people look after their own and certainly in the media there seems to be a code of silence where it is particularly heinous to go to the press about your colleagues.

I'm no fan of RB but why him, why now when a lot of what went on was happening in plain sight? The 16 year olds mum knew at the time for instance. If there's evidence of crime it must be brought before a court, everyone has the right to a fair trial. Innocent until proven guilty. Whipping the court of public opinion to a frenzy smacks of witch hunts.

The reasons are simple and grim.

lots of people thought his behaviour was fine / funny / impressive at the time and they still do.

@LoobiJee .

My partner listens to Virgin Radio and it was really bizarre to have the new read out with Brand being the main story then Chris Evans quickly starting to talk about amateur park running. Ironically there was part of the show about 'celeb gossip'' on the show completely avoiding the obvious gossip.......

I think there a lot of men in the industry looking back at their own pasts.

90s Lad culture was just so edgy and cool, wasn’t it?

I couldn’t remember any details, tbh, other than him going out on benders, being too hungover to turn up for work, and eventually getting sacked. So I googled, which brought up an article about Top Gear (I’d forgotten about Evans being woeful on that when it relaunched) which mentioned the Clarkson incident.

Those Brand > Evans > Clarkson links just highlights the fundamental point: high profile men are allowed to get away with all sorts of behaviour.

The RB apologism is in line with that. The current conspiracy theories merely allow the Men’s Rights To Do Whatever The Heck They Want advocates to distract attention away from what’s actually driving their high levels of motivation for minimising male bad behaviour.

there is probably a lot of behaviour that in reality won't reach a court but in society that doesn't prevent people taking a view and judging accordingly. We are allowed the court of human opinion and it's aligned to free speech (ironically what a lot of Brand supporters do like).

There seems to have been a lot of deliberate ignorance over in the past with institutions such as Channel 4 and BBC glossing over the behaviour of Brand, Evans et. al.

My opinion is that there has been a change , especially amongst the younger generrion, of how this behaviour is perceived. What was once lessons humour has been revealed to have a dark side and I think as a society we are wrestling with this.

Indeed.

“It's funny how these kinds of crimes aren't to be mentioned until there's been a legal trial, yet all sorts of others are fair game. “

But here’s the explanation…. (my additions in bold):

“It's an area people seem loathe to judge the men, yet have no trouble judging the behaviour of the women.”

Also, absolutely loving the bingo card of slogans and cliches at 07.30. An absolute masterclass of a post there.

@LoobiJee

Exactly. What the Brand stories reveal that there was a whole culture where behaviour that is unacceptable today was tacitly accepted. There are going to be a lot of nervous high profile men over the next few months.

The only thing I would say in his defence is that it's ok to use 'baroque' like that. I mean I haven't listened, only read about it, but baroque can mean elaborate and fanciful. If he denies what happens, as he does, 'baroque accusations' is not unreasonable phrase for what he considers elaborate fanciful lies.
I'm not sure why that has been used to evidence his lack of intelligence.

Anyway, irrelevant but it's been irritating me. He's just a horrible abusive arrogant man.

^^THIS.
There’s always been people who admire and follow those with bad/appalling images, you only have to look at history.
I remember fans drooling over heavy rock groups who treated women like sh1t, yet that didn’t stop them throwing themselves at the group members.

Datun, your Google search link above includes this article from six years ago.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5048511/BBC-refuses-probe-Chris-Evans-sex-bullying-claims.html

Including everyone’s favourite: the “It’s a witch hunt!” defence.

Some don’t care because they are misogynists. Some (and I think most of his female supporters will fall into this category) will just not want to believe that a man they thought was funny and would have happily shagged is a rapist/ criminal/abuser. Look at all the Depp supporters on here. Same thing. Cries of how innocent poor Johnny is and it’s all a ploy to bring him down (despite video evidence of him being a hideous drunken abuser) or get his money but would you have wanted your daughter married to him? Think not.

I'd say I'm pretty relaxed about male type banter. But I'm not sure celebrities should be immune from public exposure (in the media sense of the word) if people come forward with allegations of criminal behaviour. Yes, they can only be found guilty in a court of law but does that mean their victims shouldn't have a voice?

People in the public eye are expected to maintain certain standards of behaviour, particularly around abusing their power. Do I feel any sympathy for Philip Schofield or Russell Brand? Absolutely not. In fairness, they're not alone in the celeb world of seedy behaviour but they should be called out. Standards may have been more relaxed twenty years ago but rape was and still is a crime.

I don't think it's unreasonable that Russell Brand has lost the option to monetise his YouTube platform. He still has the freedom to post, just not to make money from it. If you behave inappropriately as someone in the public eye, you have to accept the consequence of losing the ability to make money in the same way.

Ironically witch hunts were one of the worst examples of institutional misogyny ever.

Any way in today's light maybe the "witch hunts' of the past are now being rexamined. When once there was sympathy about high profile men having to suffer 'unfounded' allegations maybe the rise is turning a little?

I have noticed similar to Brand Chris Evans has become extremely virtuous with a lot of charity work such as car fest, advocating wellness and good mental health and generally portraying himself as a good (reformed?) bloke. Maybe there is a pattern of public 'atonement' here.

tide