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 think some men who behaved similarly because they were 'edgy' now have daughters and are horrified at themselves. How they deal with that was to try and forget it, blame it on the era, but they know.”

Jonathan Ross’s behaviour towards female guests on his chat show was routinely leering and sleazy. He had teenage daughters at the time. To be clear, I’m not claiming he was an abuser; what I’m saying is that he fully contributed to that expectation and culture that women should have to put up with those sorts of comments from men, not only put up with them but laugh along.

If he’s changed his schtick it’s because it’s no longer fashionable/ he’s now too old to get away with it, not because he’s been suddenly enlightened by his now 30-something daughters.

Yes I think JR is very creepy, he was in his late 40s at the time of the andrew sachs shenanigans whereas RB was at least younger not that that's an excuse.

I found it interesting hearing Rosamund Urwin saying that UK defamation laws make it extremely difficult for papers to run stories like the Brand one, and the bar of evidence to get to publication is very high. Which is why it took a four year investigation. Basically the fact Brand hasn’t sued strongly suggests that it’s all true.

(As in the UK, the burden of proof for libel/defamation is on the person accusing, not the accused - so if he sued it would be on The Times and Channel Four to prove in court that their allegations are true. In the US, the burden would be on Russell Brand to prove that the allegations are NOT true.)

So her view was that UK defamation laws help keep victims silent and prevent the media from outing predators. This idea that ‘trial by media’ is an easy way to ruin someone’s life on no evidence I think is really inaccurate.

"I believe people are innocent until proven guilty." So do I, and have often been criticised for it. I will await the results of any possible trial in this case when it comes to criminal charges.
However- and it's a big however- simply watching the clips of his old shows reminds me why I could never stand him- his openly spoken words are just plain disgusting. And also from the Dispatches programme, direct evidence of the way his open behaviour at work was 'excused', even encouraged, and covered up, is the worst part of what has come out so far that's proven and in plain sight. And that's enough for me to say he should not have been employed in any organisation. And for me to feel very angry at all those who were part of enabling him, or still are.

Yes, I'm not so bothered about the 'trial by media' thing in this case as I am about the 'punishment without trial' thing.

When people have done wrong, if they genuinely want forgiveness, the drill is- openly admit it without making excuses, do everything you can to put things right with those you have hurt, genuinely repent, and amend. Then you can ask for forgiveness. In that order.
He hasn't even started.

He got where he is because of the support of the MSM, for whom he worked for decades. As have almost every conspiracy theorist who slags it off.
Just like those who try to tell you they are against 'the elite' when they were almost all born and bred in it. (Johnson, Farage, the lot).

I don't like Brand and could never see his appeal. Even when he was ralking about stuff I generally thought was reasonable in principle, I thought he sounded like a silly twit.

I don't necessarily think that it is useful to compare the social norms of right now with those of, say, the 1970s rock scene, but I don't think that applies to RB - both in terms of time period but also the nature of the accusations is a lot different IMO.

It's also my gut feeling that the accusations are correct.

And there is the rub. It's just my gut feeling, and given that I think he comes off as a creep, I am unsure to what extent my gut feeling is influenced by that. I know that there can be weirdos who stalk or make accusations against famous people, due to wanting fame, or money, or just because they are obsessive, and I have no real way to know if that could apply here or to other cases like this.

I'm very uncomfortable with the assumption some have that no one will use false accusations for their own ends, if they are easy to make, I think it's no different than any other area where people seem to think the supposed victims will always be completely honest.

So my approach tends to be, have my own opinions, but not make too much of them, and wait for the legal system to do it's work. I generally feel much happier talking about my opinions after that has happened. But I think it's important in general that its a process that isn't undermined by public tial by media. I also think, though it doesn't really apply much in this case, that we need to be careful about things like removing people's livelihood based on what are still just accusations.

I reserve judgement on any criminal offences that took place in private until after any trial- It's too easy to make assumptions. I mean, I never liked Savile, but did like Harris. You really can't tell.
But he has done enough which we do know about for certain, from his own words and actions in plain sight, for me to feel that no decent and responsible employer ought to consider hiring him, or having any business relationship with him. And any that did employ him have questions to answer about what they knew, and why they didn't protect women from having to work or associate with this man.
Accusations can be made in public about any offence- the redress if accusations are malicious and/or untrue is the libel laws (which he can afford to use when others can't, incidentally). If accusations could not be made in public, then many a powerful criminal would have got off free in the past- sadly, without open accusations, often the police and employers will do nothing. It appears that there were lots of accusations doing the rounds for years in private, but nothing was done. So what else is there for victims to do?
I think libel law needs to be reformed so anyone can use it, and the wealthy can't abuse it, but that's not the issue here.

I never understood the appeal of Brand, and I especially didn't understand why the BBC, Guardian, Channel 4 and other left-leaning outlets and individuals held him up as some kind of cultural icon. I think it's somewhat ironic that they now decide he's a monster following his recent shift in behaviour.

Regarding those who have decided he's innocent and the women are lying, this is a man who:

led a hedonistic lifestyle full of sex, drugs and alcohol;

had the hubris and arrogance of a man with power, fame and fortune;

who constantly toed the line with his comments and humour and regularly delved into innuendo;

had a reputation as a lothario and was always viewed as some kind of sexual love rat.

Considering all of these things combined, I think it's perfectly believable that he may have crossed that line on a few occassions.

I do think he's being singled out when plenty of others around him would have been worse or just as bad. I also think he's being put on "trial" for being a part of a culture that existed 20 years ago, and some of the criticism he's receiving is based on his promiscuity and consensual - though grotty and disgusting - encounters.

Nrtft. I'm not a fan of Brand. Practically the first, and only, thing I learned about him was that he seemed sexually incontinent. It's odd the allegations have emerged now. I'd've said his peak was past. I had no idea about his more recent activities. I do believe people are innocent until proven guilty. I don't like trial by media, even social media, and I haven't watched the Dispatches programme.

Anyway YouTube thought I wanted to see this (I was looking for advice on getting rid of fungus gnats!). He makes good points about men who've previously been accused, monstered and then found not guilty. And Harvey Weinstein. The bit about the Department in the British Army though...? That it exists, yes. That it has been trying to control public opinion, yes. That it's gone after Brand*?

Watch it, if you want to, make your own mind up.

*Even if it has, it doesn't mean the allegations are false. Or true either.

If Brand was investigated for tax dodging or massive financial fraud would there be so many people defending him? Michelle Mone is an example of someone who is widely condemned for being involved in a government PPE contract but I've never seen a single thread defending her, I'd be surprised if there was even a post. And she hasn't been the subject of a major investigation AFAIK and definitely never charged with anything. What is it about this unpleasant, misogynistic, deranged conspiracy-spouting, unoriginal and very grubby-looking man that brings people to defend him? Is it him (eww, why?), or is it because the victims in this case are women and not bank accounts?

I never liked Savile, but did like Harris
Ironically, when Rolf was arrested, Russell Brand wrote "Oh no, not you too," or words to that effect, which I find interesting now...either he has always been in denial about his own behaviour or genuinely sets himself apart.

Or it was about getting caught.

It's odd the allegations have emerged now.

Not really. They have been around for years, but his brand no longer has value, either in tv/film or politically, so there are fewer people to protect him. It’s more surprising that he lasted as long as he did, and that is why the story has wider relevance. It’s as much about the culture that supported him as it is about Brand.

Who knows whether he will ever face criminal charges, but he hasn’t been selling anything more than conspiracy theories for a while. Again, unless he faces criminal charges (and even if he does) it seems unlikely that this will stop.

No, the context was tears/sad face at a childhood hero being a perv rather than under arrest. It had a Rolfaroo cartoon with it iirc.
I can't find it but I did find an article/footage from 2014 with Brand's soundbite at the time.
Russell Brand says Rolf Harris verdicts mean we have to 'revise our own childhood' - Mirror Online

It was not acceptable then. He has been accused of at least one violent rape which left a woman with injuries that required treatment. Clearly there were behaviours that people thought were acceptable then that definitely weren’t, looking back I can see that. Some of RB’s behaviour probably does fall into that category. But the main accusations from the documentary and 4 year investigation are pretty black and white. It’s not a case of a few blurred lines and a different time.

I do believe people are innocent until proven guilty. I don't like trial by media, even social media, and I haven't watched the Dispatches programme.

None of us can make comparisons or judgements without going to the primary sources. I'd suggest anyone does as much of that as possible.

The woman's hour episode last Monday was particularly important, as was the world at 1 tang followed on the same day.

There's a good post on another thread which is relevant here.

Voodooqualities around 7:25 (thread in next post)

"There's no free speech incursion here.

YT will have demonitised Brand's videos to protect their own brand and because few advertisers will want their ads running on his videos, simple as that. Brand agreed to the T&C's when he opened his account. His videos are still there and he can publish more.

Rumble's brand is different - they specifically position themselves as a platform which will let you make money from broadcasting controversial and non-mainstream views. Rumble's response to the letter they received is clearly written as a PR/marketing exercise. Dripping with emotive language. I bet they loved being able to publish it and further embed their brand in people's minds as the internet's defender of free speech (but in reality it's not free speech they are enabling, it's making money from that speech. Remember - Brand is still on YT).

The question in the last paragraph of Dame Caroline's letter is pertinent and Rumble made zero attempt to answer it.

The Department of Culture, Media and Sport has a remit to ensure the UK's media and broadcasting infrastructure is functioning. If we have a situation where someone accused of a crime can make money from broadcasting a discussion of the situation, that's an issue. It's an issue for our culture and media in general, and it's an issue for fairness to the alleged victims.

A similar letter would be sent to a newspaper if they paid Brand money for his side of the story. In fact the repercussions if they did this would be greater than just getting a letter. The newspaper would not get the letter it they just ran his side of the story without paying him."

Is free speech for everyone, including Russell Brand? www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4903936-is-free-speech-for-everyone-including-russell-brand

Mmmm. I don’t think this quite works when you are a celebrity facing criminal allegations, all eyes are on you, any admission could lead to your family, your young children being hard-hit, both in terms of family finances, and loss of one parent’s presence due to a possible lengthy prison sentence, made even lengthier by any unwise comments you may make. No lawyer would advise him to do what you are suggesting.

I know that cancel culture advocates demand fulsome admissions of guilt, grovelling apologies, heartfelt declarations to ‘educate oneself’ and ‘do better’, publicly beating oneself with birch twigs, etc, and even afterwards you are still a pariah, unforgiving and unforgivable, I don’t think this pathway has been demonstrated to be a wise or affective move for anyone.

Beside, I think RB is actually too fucked up, by the way he was parented, to be able to get a handle on things. I don’t think he has the capacity to truly understand the hurt and pain he caused, because he was taught by his dad to physically treat women as sex objects, to be used, as a teen - a socially, sexually and psychologically formative period for anyone. That’s what I was getting at in the comment - he would find it a lot tougher to recognise the error of his ways than contemporaries who had a better upbringings.

I believe all the meditation and spiritual activity is a sincere attempt to get a handle on himself, so he can be a better person. People who weren’t taught morals often turn to religion for guidance.

*unforgiven and unforgivable
*effective

I found this interesting, it's long, over an hour. The female presenter, Ash, make the point at about 32-34 mins that what Brand is doing on air is sexual harassment of the news reader on his show.

She's right.

Yep she's right

The amazing thing on this is that he should be considered scum because of things that were considered not criminal.

One of the latest stories which is corroborated is that Brand (for a TV show) made friends with a heroin addict who pimped out his girlfriend and they filmed a programme in their house while both of them neglected their toddler. Russell then offers the man 50 quid to have sex with his girlfriend while the producer makes the toddler a sandwich.

That should finish anybody.