So this weeks blog or rant comes on the back end of yet another sexual deviant case and this time the alleged abuser is none other than Russell Brand. Hardly a surprise that such a name would potentially be linked to such a case. If you’d been living on the Moon I’d expect you to have a view or opinion on Brand since I’m sure he bedded our nightly ball of cheese also, likely misconstrued as a lunar eclipse.
Firstly, this is not meant to be any means of attack or defence of Brand, more my take on the entire situation. As with my previous blog regarding Mason Greenwood, a system and/or culture surrounding alleged abusers plays a significant part in creating individuals. Brand, like other big names before him (Weinstein, Spacey, Saville and R. Kelly) weren’t one-man operators. They were enabled. They were tolerated. They were, as Channel 4’s ‘Dispatches’ titled their Saturday evening documentary ‘In Plain Sight’. This is an unfortunate but extremely accurate take on Brand but as with numerous other cases both past and present there’s always a long line of Bystanders. Yes, it’s the Top Bosses, Broadcasters, Producers, PA’s, Showrunners, hangers-on, etc who all come out years later with their takes, happy to be interviewed to build the tired narrative about predatory and coercive behaviour (almost taking role of victim themselves) who are the main target of my rant. As his former PA from 2006-07 shared, Brand endlessly answered his door and paraded around in his ‘tighty whities’. Additionally Brand made countless inappropriate comments to Women across his workplace and even had conversations on air with good ol’ Sir Jimmy Saville about sending a naked girl to Saville. Clearly CLEARLY this type of behaviour should have sounded the alarm and maybe (just maybe) someone should have put up some stringent boundaries or axed him all together if such behaviour persisted. Ultimately, this blog is neither siding with Brand but aims to highlight the impact of external entities passive manner, which brought Brand to his alleged victims. Let’s be clear, Brand didn’t just transcend from unknown obscurity to an LA mansion with Women at his door. He was elevated from podium to podium regardless of his inappropriateness (in most cases because of it), becoming a bigger liability during his ascension but, as it turned out minus the tipping point.
As my opening line suggests, Russell Brand being Russell Brand should be no surprise to anyone. His name alone is a synonym for lothario, Womaniser, sex-pest, you name it. As ‘Will’ from the Inbetweeners once quoted during Season 1, Episode 5 “It's just funny how you never get any girls around here, and yet away on caravan club you're like some gypsy Russell Brand!”
Brand, a well known recovering drug and sex addict who would probably have bonked the hole in the O-Zone layer had he been be able to get at it, should come as no real surprise in this case where sexual deviancy is concerned. This would be like saying Cristiano Ronaldo likes scoring goals or Donald Trump is an idiotic narcissist. I mean HELLO!!!! This is not to say Brand has committed any legal wrong doing but given his past behaviours, comments and ‘provocative’ nature (as he put it in his video response on ‘X’ the day before the Dispatches doc aired) it is plausible that Brand had the potential to cross lines and as ever in these cases, the true line of consent and the side which Brand landed on will only be known to Brand and the alleged victims.
To go back to the start with Brand (for me), my initial memory of Brand is when he rocked up on ‘Big Brothers Big Mouth’ (BBBM) around 2006. He was around before but I’d never heard of him. He had been on MTV prior to this but due to his issues with addictions, was sent to rehab by his Agent to dry-out. Time passes and he rocks-up on C4’s BBBM. As the Dispatches doc referenced from Brands own autobiography, Brand admitted he had ‘No Trouble’ clauses in his C4 contract. A very vague and broad clause but a ‘catch all’ clause nonetheless, likely there to cover C4’s backside but ultimately one, which Brand was in breach of time and time again. As anyone who watched the Dispatches doc, it’s clear Brands behaviour was well known about the workplace but rather than address the issue at hand he was more often than not rewarded with an improved contract due to his appeal and of course RATINGS! As ever, it all comes back to money. As I mentioned with Greenwood in my last post, if Brand wasn’t appealing with soaring ratings, he’d have been down the road a long time ago. The Public wanted Brand though. They wanted his controversial comments and humour. It was subscribed to. He was just being himself. Brand wasn’t a man to get into character or act a certain way on TV or the radio. This is the very reason he was cast for the role in ‘Getting Over Sarah Marshall’, as the role played by Brand was based on himself.
Moving forward, Brand then moves from C4 to the good ol’ BBC. If you have sexual deviancy affiliation, these guys will give you a job. I must say at this point in time there is likely enough on the record that classifies Brand as ‘baggage’ (to say the least) alongside overwhelmed HR Departments given the amount of work he’s sent their way over the years. This isn’t enough though. The BBC want ratings and Brand (who is at the top of his game at this point) can deliver them. As per the Dispatches doc, there were 4 incidents, which stuck in my head during his time at the BBC leading up to ‘Sachsgate’. In no particular order:
Brand exposed himself and then urinated into a bottle in the studio where he worked – Outcome: Brand keeps his job and is reminded of where the Toilets are.
Brand makes repetitive sexual gestures to his Female show Producer who makes it known she is not comfortable with this – Outcome: Brand keeps his job.
Brand is having sex with competition winners in the Toilets (after he was reminded of where they were), which he admitted to in his book. Again, surely somebody observed at least one instant of this? Outcome – Brand keeps his job.
Brand has an extremely uncomfortable on-air chat with Jimmy Saville, which concludes with Brand saying he has an assistant whose mandate is to do ‘meet and greets’ and massages with anyone Brands requests, which prompts Brand to offer to send this Assistant to Saville – naked. I’m sure this wasn’t the Assistants official mandate but the nature of the conversation, even before the Saville scandal broke, was extremely uncomfortable and would’ve been hugely inappropriate in private let alone LIVE ON-AIR!!! Outcome – Brand keeps his job.
Now, I know I’m not famous but if I committed any one of these acts at my place of work I’d be fired immediately. Yes Brand is famous, but these are still highly inappropriate incidents, which should be ringing a very LOUD alarm with the BBC and their Lawyers. What did Brand have to do to get fired…
Brands final act during his BBC tenure would be the Andrew Sachs (‘Sachsgate’) incident, which would force the hand of the BBC to cut ties with Brand (and Jonathon Ross) after the pair found it amusing to leave Sachs a lengthy voicemail, which ended with Ross declaring Brand had f**ked his Granddaughter. On this, Jonathon Ross wouldn’t be a surprise future scandal given his own track-record. It is alarming (given the prior 4 incidents) how Brand had even got this far. I remember listening to this infamous voicemail at the time and it was like listening to a pair of drunk obnoxious teenage boys winding up an old man for no reason beyond being as utterly vile, as possible. As much as I could appreciate the appeal of Brand at this time, I did always find his humour awkward and just not funny. His stand-ups were the worst, often with only a handful of laughs despite a large audience, which were more out of awkwardness than anything.
Regardless of the extremely high-level rap sheet above, Brand is still on the upward trajectory at this point. MTV – check, C4 – check, BBC – check. Next up, Hollywood. Now, as we all know with Hollywood and such places (Weinstein, Spacey, R. Kelly, Cosby), as long as you're trending, you’re in. In Brands case he needn’t even audition. His roles for characters were based on him. Easiest job in the World and he’d be lucratively rewarded for it. In his films, he starred along Tom Cruise, Jonah Hill, Jason Segel, Helen Mirren and Alec Baldwin to name a few.
By now the World and everyone in it is fully aware of what Brand is like. His narcissism, his humour, his appetite for sex, etc. Brands own ‘people’ are aware of it. His ex-Wife Katy Perry had talked about his controlling behaviour in 2012, with former fling Danni Minogue talking about his ‘Predator’ ways, as far back as 2006. Showrunners made claims that their job included getting the names of girls in audiences who Brand had picked out, like a ‘menu’, as someone on the Dispatches doc put it. Now, I know these Showrunners aren’t doing this task out of willingness (more so they keep their job and hopefully move up the career ladder) but this unofficial responsibility can’t have been a secret either. Just because facilitating Women, Drugs, etc isn’t written into your job description, doesn’t mean it doesn’t go on and it certainly doesn’t go on unnoticed. It stems from the top-down. Did nobody know this was going on? Wasn’t it happening ‘in plain sight’? Of course they did but this is the ‘norm’. This is precisely what Elvis and R. Kelly use to do; Have some job desperate individual traffic girls to their changing rooms.
From Producers, PA’s, Showrunners, you name it, they all knew. EVERYONE knew what Brand was up to. Not necessarily acts of sexual assault, but his rap sheet would suggest he should be managed extremely closely or more appropriately hooked all together. It seems the methodology of management for Brand was ‘Passive’, which enabled Brand to feel untouchable. Like a God. ‘I walk around this World with big Broadcasters, fans, media and Hollywood throwing themselves at me’, must’ve been the thoughts of an already narcissistic Brand. Even Hanks, Pitt, Cruise, Bale, Di Caprio have to audition; but not Brand. He literally did what he wanted, urinated where he wanted, and nobody thought for a second Brand may have an issue with knowing where boundaries were, as up to this point C4, BBC and Hollywood had removed them.
Now to be clear, regardless of boundaries being blurred or moved by external parties, Brand should still know the difference between right or wrong. However, as is the case when you’re trying to determine what is appropriate to wear for work or the sense of humour limits in a group of mates, you need input from others. I don’t want to appear like I’m comparing if a dark humoured joke is acceptable amongst your co-workers to that of a sex-crime but when the scale of Brands enabling is looked at on a macro-scale coinciding with the fact many many Women did quite happily have consenting rendezvous with him then you really do leave yourself wide-open to the risk of creating a liability. Additionally, Brand was a recovering sex-addict who was well known for being provocative and exploring all avenues of sex. He will likely admit himself he crossed lines that are outside the ‘traditional encounter’, albeit within the realms of consent. Sexual preferences vary from person to person in a very diverse way. My point here is, had Brand been reigned in during his time at C4 or the time he urinated at the BBC and not rewarded with larger contracts, with Agents in-between not doing their due-diligence on just who is Russell Brand, then these alleged victims may not be victims at all. Some people need protecting from themselves before they become a risk to others.
The reason we have people like Epstein, Weinstein, Glitter or a Saville is because of the endless enablers and/or Bystanders. Elvis was infamous for having a penchant for 14-year olds; His own Wife Pricilla was of this age when they first got together. Now I don’t want to put Brand in the same bucket as this lot, I’m just using it as an extreme example to highlight the dangers of enabling. If Bystanders and Enablers don’t call Brand out on his behaviour, how is Brand expected to know? We can’t sit here and point fingers at Brand for potential wrong-doing when at the same time ‘we’ also witnessed things first-hand and equally did nothing. Even if Brand did know it was wrong, why are we all just sitting there saying and doing f*** all? Brand wouldn’t be the first person to test how far he could push the boundaries in search of push back. Isn’t this how serial killers start out? First killing small animals before upping the ante on their prey and severity the longer they go without being caught. Sometimes they want to be caught for the sake of a challenge and notoriety – Ted Bundy and The Zodiac to name a few. On the Dispatches doc there is even an admission from one of the alleged victims that the night she was attacked, one of Brands own Security heard her screams but subsequently did nothing. This security person later came across the victim and apologised for doing nothing. I of course don’t put Brand in the same fame hungry sociopathic bucket as Bundy or The Zodiac but he clearly did like to see how far he could push them boundaries.
Equally while a Female should be able to go to a Mans house or hotel room at some ungodly hour of the night, given it’s Russell Brand, maybe don’t go there. Brand is the sort of person who’d be up for a shag midway through an Earthquake rather than seeking safety, so don’t go around his house at 2am. It’s the same reason I wouldn’t parade around Moss Side (Manchester, UK) or Compton (LA, USA) waiving bags of cash; I shouldn’t be mugged but it’s likely I’m gonna be (and some). The World is a s*** place full of s*** people.
I also get tired of the media narratives and the framing of a story. Like the Times’ use of a half red image of a sinister looking Brand, likely tying to this ‘glazing of the eyes’ his victims talked of. Or the endless use of the words ‘Predator’ and ‘Coercive’, which are thrown around too loosely. Let’s maybe have the Police put together a case first before ‘branding’ someone, although regardless of the final outcome, Brand will forever have these tags now.
In final summary, I think Brand likely crossed a line. He was a sex-addict and a narcissist and Women loved him. He was surrounded by hundreds of people who all knew what he was up to behind the scenes (consensual or not) with the Public equally having a pretty good understanding of Brands behaviour. The actual hard evidence of Brand being a sex-offender and/or rapist is subject to investigation where hopefully the full truth will prevail. Whether it be Brand, Saville or Elvis, whose names could be interchanged with a similar natured narrative, ‘we’ ALL knew about the endless incidents, which have been made public and were witnessed ‘in plain sight’ by ‘their people’, the Public, Media and Broadcasters. Even if there were no observations of sexual assault, there was enough evidence of extreme inappropriateness and horrific trending behaviour. Despite all this though, nobody cared enough. Everyone just saw ratings and money and thought to hell with the ethics and decency. We, as Bystanders just let Brand be Brand ‘in plain sight’.
Comments