Scrutable

So it's no surprise that 'comedian' Russell Brand is the named 'celeb' that has been named in the allegations against him of rape, sexual assault and abusive controlling behaviour.

His defence in a video he released is that yes he was very, very, very promiscuous and on drugs but it was all consensual.

Absolutely not even slightly surprised. I’ve always thought he was a revolting man

Grumble wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 16, 2023 5:04 pm

Absolutely not even slightly surprised. I’ve always thought he was a revolting man

Likewise, no reason beyond a few bad vibes and what my girlfriend would describe as snide behaviours

The first few minutes of the Dispatches programme seem to show that this deserves its own thread.

Horrible accusations

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/russ ... -v5hxdlmb6

purplehaze wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 16, 2023 4:09 pm

So it's no surprise that 'comedian' Russell Brand is the named 'celeb' that has been named in the allegations against him of rape, sexual assault and abusive controlling behaviour.

His defence in a video he released is that yes he was very, very, very promiscuous and on drugs but it was all consensual.

He went beyond that. He insinuated that it was all a plot to bring him down. He didn’t say it explicitly but the message is that the woman are lying.

It is possible to be a dick without being a criminal dick but not, it appears, in this case.

Throughout his career, Brand’s material has acknowledged his sex addiction and he has often publicly joked about his predatory behaviour and sex life.

There were rumours of more sinister behaviour — said to be discussed as an “open secret” by senior TV and radio executives, and among female comedians who warned each other of his behaviour — but the women involved previously felt unable to speak out...

His womanising ways — he once said he could sleep with 80 women in a month — saw him crowned “Shagger of the Year” by The Sun three times.

I can't imagine why women would feel unable to speak out about a guy who had been lauded in the tabloids for his sexual exploits.

In December 2007, another serious complaint was made by BBC staff to Lesley Douglas about Brand’s behaviour in the Radio 2 studio. Sources who were involved said the complaint was made after an “alarming display of aggression and disrespect” by Brand in the studio, which included Brand hurling objects across the studio “in fits of rage” and “urinating in a bottle in full view of everyone”. Brand had done this, the sources said, in front of production staff and guests, including a young person who “appeared to be a minor” and had been sent to appear on Radio 2 by a charity. This alleged complaint and any others that had been made were not mentioned in subsequent official reports into Sachsgate.

How the f.ck is this not instant dismissal?!

The only surprising thing about this news is that it's news.

"Russell Brand is serial sexual predator" is something I thought would have come out during the height of the MeToo revelations; to the extent that I thought it probably had and I'd just missed it under the tsunami of revelations of other thoroughly despicable actors/directors/producers/etc.

purplehaze wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 16, 2023 4:09 pm

So it's no surprise that 'comedian' Russell Brand is the named 'celeb' that has been named in the allegations against him of rape, sexual assault and abusive controlling behaviour.

His defence in a video he released is that yes he was very, very, very promiscuous and on drugs but it was all consensual.

As an aside, thanks for putting comedian in quotes. I know he's done stand-up (and won awards) but I don't find his stand-up very funny, and the only piece of acting I've thought he did which was funny was in the Despicable Me films, where I presume he was just sticking to a script. He managed to make the not terribly good St Trinian's remake even worse with his presence and didn't get cast in the sequel. I wonder whether his awards were actually meant for Noel Fielding.

Woodchopper wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 16, 2023 8:50 pm

purplehaze wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 16, 2023 4:09 pm

So it's no surprise that 'comedian' Russell Brand is the named 'celeb' that has been named in the allegations against him of rape, sexual assault and abusive controlling behaviour.

His defence in a video he released is that yes he was very, very, very promiscuous and on drugs but it was all consensual.

He went beyond that. He insinuated that it was all a plot to bring him down. He didn’t say it explicitly but the message is that the woman are lying.

How much of a f.cking egotist do you have to be to think that you're worth a conspiracy to bring you down?

Fishnut wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 16, 2023 9:11 pm

In December 2007, another serious complaint was made by BBC staff to Lesley Douglas about Brand’s behaviour in the Radio 2 studio. Sources who were involved said the complaint was made after an “alarming display of aggression and disrespect” by Brand in the studio, which included Brand hurling objects across the studio “in fits of rage” and “urinating in a bottle in full view of everyone”. Brand had done this, the sources said, in front of production staff and guests, including a young person who “appeared to be a minor” and had been sent to appear on Radio 2 by a charity. This alleged complaint and any others that had been made were not mentioned in subsequent official reports into Sachsgate.

How the f.ck is this not instant dismissal?!

Indeed. Anywhere I've worked it would be. It seems that TV types, like the Met, get a free pass.

I was about to write that the most profitable thing Brand ever did was, terribly, to marry a rich woman and get divorced after less than a year. But googling to remind myself how much he made, I find that isn't true. Or, more accurately, it was true, until he later decided to walk away from it.

Although the quick-and-quiet divorce awarded Brand half Perry's assets, he didn't actually take a penny. This follow-on was widely reported at the time, but it came later and I never noticed it. He is reported as saying he wanted a quiet and amicable divorce settlement, in explanation, in curious contradiction to the actual divorce settlement awarding him half her assets. Of course he was sufficiently comfortably off in his own right, he could afford to walk away from it.

I always assumed that Perry had so much more to lose from any kind of salacious facts coming out, even if it was in practice mostly about what a horror Brand was, that was why she didn't fight over the money.

It is fascinating now to realise that, having got a divorce settlement awarding him a considerable fortune, belatedly Brand realised that the reputational cost to himself of actually taking Perry's money was such that he chose to walk away from it.

Not about RB himself, but an interesting thread in the same area
https://twitter.com/jimfieldsmith/statu ... 3144644985

All the usual hand wringing, lessons must be learned, victims must be listened to, things must be changed blah blah blah.

Tessa K wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 17, 2023 5:39 pm

All the usual hand wringing, lessons must be learned, victims must be listened to, things must be changed blah blah blah.

It's a question of what's acceptable in society at various times. Brand and Clarkson both got banned by the BBC for unacceptable behaviour, but it didn't do their careers much harm, maybe even helped it in certain ways. Society more broadly did not ostracise them for what was exposed on those occasions.

Meanwhile I watched a TV programme yesterday about the explorer Dr John Rae, which reveals what happens to people who are on the wrong side of social approval, regardless of the justice of the matter. Rae discovered the practical route of the North West Passage and found out what happened to the disastrous Franklin expedition. Unfortunately he made two social mistakes. First he learned from the natives how to survive in the arctic, rather than using the failed techniques of Franklin like a proper Englishman, when natives were considered savages and so inferior to Englishmen in all respects, including how to survive in the arctic, despite clear evidence to the contrary. And second, he reported the evidence of cannibalism found in the remnants of the Franklin party, which was utterly unacceptable to reveal. Proper Englishmen don't do that. He must have been lying. So he, who mapped extensive parts of the north Canadian coastline, and discovered the missing link which was the best chance to sail the NW Passage, was in effect made a non-person. Unbelievably parliament subscribed to raise a statue to John Franklin, absurdly describing him as the discoverer of the NW Passage, which became British "fact". Rae wasn't totally forgotten - the critical missing link of the NW passage he found is called the Rae Strait.

I don’t think it’s possible for someone to have a “harem of 10 women”, which is something Brand boasted of, and not see women as possessions.

Grumble wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 18, 2023 6:36 am

I don’t think it’s possible for someone to have a “harem of 10 women”, which is something Brand boasted of, and not see women as possessions.

Yes, that's definitely not polyamory.

New story from Deadline:

Russell Brand’s last major television job in the UK ended with him being dropped after he was repeatedly accused of being a “sexual predator” during the recording of the show...

Roast Battle judge Katherine Ryan turned the heat on Brand a number of times during filming. Her allegations did not make the final edit...

One person familiar with the matter said Brand was “absolutely furious” at being targeted by Ryan. This person said other comedians may have also called out Brand, though this has not been confirmed by those who worked on the show. Two other sources said he demanded that producers protect him from being roasted by his fellow comedians.

The industry insiders said [production company] Fulwell 73 grew uncomfortable with the rumors swirling around Brand and his reluctance to be roasted gave the company an opportunity to drop him.

“Contract negotiations were made as tricky as possible, is the best way to put it,” said a source familiar with talks with Brand over Season 2. “In the end, it came down to the fact that it seemed like Russell didn’t have a good sense of humor. He didn’t feel he was fair game.”

Now, it may just be damage control but I find it interesting that they claim he was dropped for his lack of a sense of humour, rather than for - you know - being a rapist and sexual predator. The way it reads makes it seem if he took the roasts well they'd have kept him on.

The list of names coming out in support of the man are entirely unsurprising.
c.nts one and all.

I think it can also be read as an attempt to find a way to get rid of him without having to rely on unproven allegations.

discovolante wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 18, 2023 1:17 pm

I think it can also be read as an attempt to find a way to get rid of him without having to rely on unproven allegations.

Yeah, and it helps minimize a defamation claim against those that accused him on the show - if he was dropped for "sense of humor" reasons, then the allegations didn't directly cause the damage.

discovolante wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 18, 2023 1:17 pm

I think it can also be read as an attempt to find a way to get rid of him without having to rely on unproven allegations.

That's how it looks to me. If you declare you're sacking him for being a rapist you're going to end up in court having to prove that or lose your shirt. You might think that's cowardice but how is some TV production company supposed to prove other people's allegations even if they sincerely believe them?

I must admit I didn't watch the Dispatches documentary. Daughter did and asked me if I wanted to watch it too but I couldn't really bear to. Brand almost immediately struck me as a revolting person and the thought of watching people describe how his horrible behaviour crossed into criminality just depressed me.

The strange thing is that watching susequent chat about him in various places I find myself noticing so much of it is about what a c.nt he is and so little is about what actual crimes might have been committed. I keep momentarily pondering replying along the lines of "Yes, that's vile behaviour but it's not actually breaking any laws". A moment later I collect my wits and don't.