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.

I believe people are innocent until proven guilty.

I hate trial by media.

It is simply that, don't overthink it.

If we can't have discussion of serious allegations in the media without there being a trial, then that means that all of the coverage of Savile was improper and should have been shut down.

Some people might say that it's fine when an alleged abuser dies. That seems arbitrary so me, you might have a load of victims tapping their fingers waiting for an abuser to die before they can have their say.

What happens when someone alleges an assault but despite good evidence an alleged abuser is found not guilty? Does that mean the victim is gagged for good? What happens when a victim is so damaged they're in no condition to go through a trial to seek a prosecution?

The media should be able to uncover the dark stuff. To only allow media coverage for cases where there's a guilty verdict would be incredibly restrictive and harmful.

@LondonLass91

innocent until proven guilty applies to our legal system but not everything is in the legal sphere. If innocent Brand has the opportunity to sue the Despatche s documentary makers for millions. He has nothing to lose and everything to gain so why not?

you don't need a criminal trial for examination of every wrong doing in the world and it has been repeated may times on these threads that sexual assault and rape are incredibly difficult to secure convictions for her undoubtedly such crimes are practically common place.

is it wrong that we have investigative journalism help women in general by exposing poor behaviour. It will then be up to the public to pass judgment in opinion at least.

Good post- I agree.

I'm not a supporter of Russell Brand but I am a supporter of legal process. Making allegations of illegal activities on tv is never right, they should be made to the police (the fact he was incredibly promiscuous is not new information, he admitted that himself publicly and it's not illegal). If someone has committed crimes publicly discussing them means that prosecution cannot be fairly achieved. Any tv programme should only go out after any potential trial.

It is noticeable that there's a vast amount of non-court bad behaviour that the media can report on but the howls get really loud when the matter in question is men being sexually abusive.

The media should be able to uncover the dark stuff. To only allow media coverage for cases where there's a guilty verdict would be incredibly restrictive and harmful

But there has to be a balace.
The press destroyed Cliff Richard, he would deem them very harmful. Caroline flacks family would deem then very harmful etc etc.

They should not be continually hounding anyone. They should maybe be able to make people aware that allegations have been made about " joe bloggs " if anyone else wants to go forwards the police has a case open and you can report anonymously.
But to print unverified information about a person is wrong. There needs to be restrictions to protect the victims and innocent.

I suppose one thing that tips me into conspiracy theory thinking in this case (I am not defending RB in any way) is why him, why now?
There are so many men with similar backgrounds and similar rumours.
Jimmy Savile had to be dead before any of this came out. There are other aging celebrities rumoured to have behaved similarly, but no doubt will be dead before anything comes out.
These people have been reported and their actions covered up for years.
It’s impossible to know whether this is bog standard misogyny - blame women for men’s actions and fail to take it seriously coupled with incompetent policing, or whether there are deeper problems at play. Misogyny and incompetence are far more likely, and largely evidenced, but as there are huge numbers of people who cannot believe that these actions are highly misogynistic, or can’t believe that our beloved police force is either misogynistic or incompetent.
Jimmy Savile was supported by hospitals, tv, police etc. despite them knowing what he was up to. This inevitability led to suspicions that he was part of a far reaching ring of predators/paedophiles who needed to be protected at all costs. This is a mainstream view and tends to not be considered conspiracy, so it adds up that many will automatically assume similar in other high profile cases.

Why were RB’s actions dismissed/covered up in the first place? I can well believe it was incompetence/misogyny, but I suspect he has played a clever game here - he’s fairly recently changed his public persona from predatory but fun sex addict to a spiritual truth speaker - gaining tons of followers as he tapped in on the vaccine paranoia, free speech, and inequality theories which certain people have flocked to, and are likely to stand by him no matter what. I could well believe that he knew allegations were being made and created his current cult-like image deliberately in an attempt to protect himself.
In terms of “lessons will be learnt”, I seriously doubt they will. Things will carry on as normal, men will get away with raping women, then one day the pot will be stirred again and another prominent man will go through trial be media, and lessons will be learnt again.

And other calling people rape apologists and brand supporters because they don't agree with trail by media is ridiculous.

But there has to be a balace.
The press destroyed Cliff Richard, he would deem them very harmful. Caroline flacks family would deem then very harmful etc etc.

The balance is responsible journalism. In the Brand case there was a careful 4 year investigative journalism process that, from what we've seen, has come up with pretty compelling evidence. For example a woman going straight to a rape counselling service and having to engage with Brand apologising for doing what he did without consent.

Women did go to the police. It was reported.
They did nothing. What next?

Many people reported JS (I personally know one of them) and were treated appallingly for doing so.

I suppose one thing that tips me into conspiracy theory thinking in this case (I am not defending RB in any way) is why him, why now?

No matter who is accused, and no matter when, this conspiracy-minded question can be asked. The only way to avoid it is for women not to make accusations.

I suspect, that the overlap lands where those women have acquired a gc position mainly via a defense of free speech.

Perhaps the manner and timing of the allegations look crooked given the seemingly free pass Brand was given when he landed squarely on the right side of the established media?

That's not to say I don't think he's a rapey narcissist - just that the get out of jail free card was revoked upon his non-compliance.

It certainly isn't because they agreed with him because Brand - despite his raving about powerful machinations manipulating the masses - amazingly still believed that twaw and seemingly cool with compelled speech so as to not hurt anyone's feelings.

I'm sure there are some rape apologists among the gc crowd, there are always some around waiting to tell women that they brought it on themselves or those who are unwilling to accept that those they once believed could ever be a wrong-un, but it's too simplistic to suggest they are all at it.

Leaving aside the question of criminal charges, Russell Brand sells a product - himself -whose market value has risen and fallen. He profited from acting like a dick, and now he is finding that difficult to sell. He just has his niche market of conspiracy theorists.

Less a trial, more the ups and downs of business. Caveat venditor.

But to print unverified information about a person is wrong. There needs to be restrictions to protect the victims and innocent.

I'd be surprised if there wasn't verification of the RB allegations. There was reference to three years of investigations, there were multiple claims from victims and the lawyers would review it before publication.

Same for Mason Greenwood with the voice recording, which I don't believe he's denied the veracity of.

For me it isnt a case of 'supporting Russell' it is more that i cant stand this trial by media thing we have going on at the moment. It is horrible. I never paid him much attention in the 2000s, he only came to my attention when he started his youtube channel and he is one of the only people on this platform that makes complete sense to me. Does he believe it himself or (as has been suggested) was he playing the long game and setting himself up with a new persona? I dont know but he has been clean for 12 years and is now happily married with young children. If people have criminal evidence against him then they should go to the police not the media. In the meantime i will be heading over to Rumble and continue to follow him there. Why? because it is my choice to do so.

Doubling down, tripling down. They can’t deal with being “wrong”.

For those asking why now, it isn't happening "now". It's been in process for years. The trigger to investigate was years ago.

I find it really hypocritical that Russell brand supporters disagree with “trial by media” when that is exactly what Russell’s method was when accusing the “establishment” and Bill Gates.

why should we believe his unfounded rumours but not others that are frankly, more believable. Why can he not be subject to the same criticism that he throws at others?

id be wary of anyone who blindly supports him, and be mistrustful of them in general. If you happen to be raped by someone they like more than you, you’re instantly “a liar”.

I think a number of women are conflicted between their intellect and their biology (for want of a better word).

They find/found him very attractive despite knowing that he had very dubious morals, and maybe worse.

People like to think that their sexual attraction and values align and it is uncomfortable when they don’t. It must be even worse for those who slept with him and tried to put their suspicions out if their mind for the sake of a notch on their bedpost.

And women go to the media when all other avenues are either exhausted or inaccessible. women went to the police and were slapped with harassment orders. Women went to the police over Jimmy Savile.

The media works in moments when the police don’t. Look at Harvey Weinstein.

If we all had to wait for the authorities in the proper way to act to make things right and felt compelled to not cause a fuss in the media, can you imagine how that would go?

I'd be surprised if there wasn't verification of the RB allegations. There was reference to three years of investigations, there were multiple claims from victims and the lawyers would review it before publication

Yes, i am not saying i think he is innocent. I am saying it should not be allowed to be played out in the media. 3 years of investigation should mean the police arresting him with the facts from the investigation presented. With the women giving their evidence there.

I am not a Brand supporter but I don't think he should lose his livelihood because of unproven alligations.
The British politician Dame Caroline Dinenage should also not have got involved and had no business writing to an independant social media company, Rumble telling them to take down Brand's content, it is interfering with the press.

The media works in moments when the police don’t.

Colour me cynical, but where was the fourth estate when the bbc regularly paid for a school girl to be chauffeured to Brand's home?