Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Russell Brand: rape and sexual abuse allegations, grifting and general dodginess - discussion

Dystopiary said:
Definitely one reason he was able to hide in plain sight was because of the toxic culture he was a part of. He wasn't so different to others around him. Anyone caught up in that, like (a then 22 year old) Lily Allen here, would've looked like the odd one out or unprofessional if they'd objected to any of these "jokes".

Sorry if it was already posted, clip of Big Fat Quiz of the Year 2007 with Brand, Jonathan Ross and Noel Fielding:



eta and Jimmy Carr, gross
Click to expand...

That is horrible. All initiated by Ross. He's the one who comes across as the most creepy. Allen's clearly uncomfortable with it. Brydon and Mitchell appear unable to challenge their assigned roles as the 'sexless ones' in this battle of the alpha males, but are clearly also uncomfortable.

Problem is, though, did any of them then refuse the next gig? I can see how it is very hard to challenge this shit from within without risking your own career, but if you don't, if you continue to accept the gigs and the pay cheques, then you become part of the problem.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
That is horrible. All initiated by Ross. He's the one who comes across as the most creepy. Allen's clearly uncomfortable with it. Brydon and Mitchell appear unable to challenge their assigned roles as the 'sexless ones' in this battle of the alpha males, but are clearly also uncomfortable.

Problem is, though, did any of them then refuse the next gig? I can see how it is very hard to challenge this shit from within without risking your own career, but if you don't, if you continue to accept the gigs and the pay cheques, then you become part of the problem.
Click to expand...
If nothing else, it would be good if there was a real focus on the likes of Ross after this. Wouldn't necessarily change comedy, but it would be nice if they suffered a bit. Main issue of course is that 'comedy' is institutionally patriarchal and, well, rapey.
 
Wilf said:
If nothing else, it would be good if there was a real focus on the likes of Ross after this. Wouldn't necessarily change comedy, but it would be nice if they suffered a bit. Main issue of course is that 'comedy' is institutionally patriarchal and, well, rapey.
Click to expand...
Yeah, he's made a career as the not-quite-comedian-but-says-outrageous-things. Revisiting the Andrew Sachs phone calls, which happened a few months after that show, it appears it was also Ross who initiated that by shouting 'he fucked your granddaughter' in the first message. How edgy and transgressive of him. :rolleyes:

Problem is, of course, that the likes of Ross aren't invited on shows despite saying shit like this. They're invited on because they say shit like this.
 
Last edited:
LeytonCatLady said:
It's a good idea, but it would need to be implemented in such a way that it doesn't criminalise a 17 year old with a sexual partner the same age and then has their 18th birthday first.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of examples discussed maybe on this thread, maybe somewhere else. E.g Canada's below (which I'm not saying is perfect, just as an example of how you can carve out exceptions for close-in-age relationships).

Close in age exceptions​

A 14 or 15 year old can consent to sexual activity as long as the partner is less than five years older and there is no relationship of trust, authority or dependency or any other exploitation of the young person. This means that if the partner is 5 years or older than the 14 or 15 year old, any sexual activity is a criminal offence.

There is also a "close in age" exception for 12 and 13 year olds. A 12 or 13 year old can consent to sexual activity with a partner as long as the partner is less than two years older and there is no relationship of trust, authority or dependency or any other exploitation of the young person. This means that if the partner is 2 years or older than the 12 or 13 year old, any sexual activity is a criminal offence.

Sexual exploitation​

A 16 or 17 year old cannot consent to sexual activity if:

  • their sexual partner is in position of trust or authority towards them, for example their teacher or coach
  • the young person is dependent on their sexual partner, for example for care or support
  • the relationship between the young person and their sexual partner is exploitative
The following factors may be taken into account when determining whether a relationship is exploitative of the young person:

  • the young person's age
  • the age difference between the young person and their partner
  • how the relationship developed (for example, quickly, secretly, or over the internet)
  • whether the partner may have controlled or influenced the young person
Click to expand...
 
LeytonCatLady said:
It's a good idea, but it would need to be implemented in such a way that it doesn't criminalise a 17 year old with a sexual partner the same age and then has their 18th birthday first.
Click to expand...
Loads of countries of age of consent laws that vary by age. It's not a new, or difficult thing to do. Most of them open up fully at 16 and have special rules for younger kids, but no reason it couldn't go out to 18.

Edit: Ninja'ed in detail. Thank-you Cid
 
littlebabyjesus said:
Yeah, he's made a career as the not-quite-comedian-but-says-outrageous-things. Revisiting the Andrew Sachs phone calls, which happened a few months after that show, it appears it was also Ross who initiated that by shouting 'he fucked your granddaughter' in the first message. How edgy and transgressive of him. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Yes, one of the things I remember about that was brand actually saying 'you can't say that' to him. When russell brand thinks you've gone too far.... We've probably had a few decades of comics and presenters merging 70s attitudes, laddishness with a veneer of modern irony. Ross though is just a vile sexist shit, full stop.
 
Cloo said:
Depressing to see the fb feed of a mate with fewer lefty snowflake contacts than me and most of my friends - mate is horrified and angry about Brand but a few people responding who are just still totally sold on this idea that women make up allegations for some kind of gain and 'why didn't they go to the police then?' Etc etc
Click to expand...
One of my relatives (female) who was a fan of Brand back in the day was sent details of the charges by Mrs SFM. She replied with the rather haughty "I'll wait to see what the courts decide". Mrs SFM replied to that with "Really? #metoo"
 
LeytonCatLady said:
It's a good idea, but it would need to be implemented in such a way that it doesn't criminalise a 17 year old with a sexual partner the same age and then has their 18th birthday first.
Click to expand...
I think that's the intention. I've read that in countries with a very low age of consent (say 12 or 14) that they make a distinction between someone of that age having relations with someone a couple of years older and with someone considerably older where the power balance is obviously skewed.

A friend of mine back in NI was 16 and had consensual sex with a 15 year old at a party. Her dad found her diary and wanted my mate charged with statutory rape despite them both being technically underage (age of consent in NI was 17 at the time). Luckily for both of them it didn't proceed but that's the sort of case this law should allow for.
 
seeformiles said:
I think that's the intention. I've read that in countries with a very low age of consent (say 12 or 14) that they make a distinction between someone of that age having relations with someone a couple of years older and with someone considerably older where the power balance is obviously skewed.

A friend of mine back in NI was 16 and had consensual sex with a 15 year old at a party. Her dad found her diary and wanted my mate charged with statutory rape despite them both being technically underage (age of consent in NI was 17 at the time). Luckily for both of them it didn't proceed but that's the sort of case this law should allow for.
Click to expand...
No more than a 2 year gap unless both are over 18 with a minimum age (say 13 or 14) at which it's a crime no matter what seems sensible to me.
 
Wilf said:
If nothing else, it would be good if there was a real focus on the likes of Ross after this. Wouldn't necessarily change comedy, but it would be nice if they suffered a bit. Main issue of course is that 'comedy' is institutionally patriarchal and, well, rapey.
Click to expand...
There obviously has to be a change initiated from the top, with booking agents, managers and money-givers taking a very stern look at themselves as to what is acceptable, but there also has to be a shift from the bottom, eg the audiences and consumers. This is partly what I meant upthread somewhere when I said that society has to re-evaluate where a line is drawn.

I'm no stranger to stage-life myself, and one of the acts I'm in relies heavily on audience participation like singing along, flag waving, arm waving, unifying in excitement. It's all pretty harmless fun and has a strong focus on lefty politics. But I do often feel uncomfortable about how easy it is to get an audience one our side, esp once the beer is flowing and everyone is a bit hyped. How the audience want us to be outrageous and how we benefit from unifying the audience 'for our cause'.

A lot of fash rock relies on exactly this: Feeling part of something bigger, being friends with strangers in the audience and the people on stage, and being entertained at the same time. Having a laugh.

Yet, stage acts need an audience to survive. Sure, exposure can be manipulated by management and production, but ultimately, an act gets re-assurance by a friendly audience. That Ross clip up there ^ is just one example of too many where audience and stage feed of each other and hype each other to an extend where both just want more. More dodge, more outrage. And at the same time it normalises a behaviour and a view of the world that is extremely harmful and damaging.

:D I don't really know where I'm going with this tbh...I guess I'm frustrated by how acts like Ross and Brand are financed and pushed by the people behind the scenes, but I'm also frustrated by how we, as a wider society and audience, allow these acts to flourish by setting the bar very low indeed. I hope developments over the next few days and weeks will somehow shift opinion a bit as to what is acceptable and funny. And maybe fewer people will be prepared to pay good money to see such dodgy shite.
 
Wilf said:
Here's my version of 'was I right about brand', but is more about how your first instincts about a person are probably right.
Click to expand...

Not to pick on you particularly but there's a danger here isn't there, in ignoring all the sex cases who you wouldn't have that reaction to? Obviously the element here of the blindingly obvious hiding in plain site can't and shouldn't be avoided but it's not like he's some sort of template sex offender.
 
Monkeygrinder's Organ said:
Not to pick on you particularly but there's a danger here isn't there, in ignoring all the sex cases who you wouldn't have that reaction to? Obviously the element here of the blindingly obvious hiding in plain site can't and shouldn't be avoided but it's not like he's some sort of template sex offender.
Click to expand...
There's much of the banal and very little of the original about him.
 
Monkeygrinder's Organ said:
Not to pick on you particularly but there's a danger here isn't there, in ignoring all the sex cases who you wouldn't have that reaction to? Obviously the element here of the blindingly obvious hiding in plain site can't and shouldn't be avoided but it's not like he's some sort of template sex offender.
Click to expand...
No, I don't think we could/should have been able to spot him as a sex offender. My point was that we should have been able to call him out as a misogynist shit all those years ago.
 
Monkeygrinder's Organ said:
Not to pick on you particularly but there's a danger here isn't there, in ignoring all the sex cases who you wouldn't have that reaction to? Obviously the element here of the blindingly obvious hiding in plain site can't and shouldn't be avoided but it's not like he's some sort of template sex offender.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but to add/clarify, I agree with the above.

Edit.. perhaps though, he kind of is. He's a version of the sex offender, the charismatic narcissist. Though not all charismatic narcissists are sex offenders and there are plenty of other types who are sex offenders. Anyway, enough on that.
 
Last edited:
Wilf said:
No, I don't think we could/should have been able to spot him as a sex offender. My point was that we should have been able to call him out as a misogynist shit all those years ago.
Click to expand...
That said, I suspect a fair few on the left didn't know who he was enough to call him out, apart from him being just some other twat on telly, and only took any notice of him when he publicly started coming out with lefty sounding stuff.
 
Dystopiary said:
Definitely one reason he was able to hide in plain sight was because of the toxic culture he was a part of. He wasn't so different to others around him. Anyone caught up in that, like (a then 22 year old) Lily Allen here, would've looked like the odd one out or unprofessional if they'd objected to any of these "jokes".

Sorry if it was already posted, clip of Big Fat Quiz of the Year 2007 with Brand, Jonathan Ross and Noel Fielding:



eta and Jimmy Carr, gross
Click to expand...

never seen this show....does it go out live or is there an editing process afterwards with someone deciding 'yer, that's alright'?
 
ska invita said:
i dont like this article at all - a well paid media columnist regrets that she didn't have enough sympathy with a victim in all this, so decides to write another column in which everything is dredged up along with some juicy offensive details accompanied with a massive picture of the victim and details about her life.

Including ...."in which she said the media maelstrom had sent her “insane”, subsequently telling the Guardian she was “a tart with a heart, a nice girl”. I am mortified to see I reacted to this by saying she should stop banging on about the whole thing."

so now the columnist is going to bang on about it for the sake of a paid column, whipping up the media maelstrom one more time and proving she still has no empathy for this woman.
Click to expand...

You're don't like Hyde's article. Can't honestly say I care very much for your post.

IMO the fact that the article is by an unpopular 'posho' and appears in the Guardian is, in this case, of less significance than some of the points it makes. The parts which stood out for me were:

As for the wider backdrop, explaining “the culture” for women during the 2000s is quite hard if you weren’t there. (...) When it wasn’t unremittingly vicious (Britney), it was weird and gross, top to bottom. (...) What is completely bizarre, with the benefit of 2023 hindsight, is how the Sachsgate story was framed, both by those who were reflexive defenders of the BBC and “comedy” and free speech (then a somewhat lefty preoccupation, funnily enough), AND by those who wished their destruction. Fleet Street quickly settled into tribes and covered it as a story where each assumed the other was acting out of vested interests. (...) Yet despite getting it right on the vileness of the broadcast, the tabloids pursuing the BBC got it wrong by endlessly and ferociously slut-shaming Georgina Baillie (even though slut-shaming wasn’t a term people used at the time). They cast the entire affair as an insult to Andrew Sachs, instead of to Baillie as well.
Click to expand...

This is all entirely inarguable IMO. And it's not necessary to look for old newspaper cuttings to refresh memories. It's fully reflected in the way 'Sachsgate' was discussed here at Urban.


Some of the "slut shaming" of Baillie on that thread hasn't, to say the least, aged well. Nor IMO some of the views on what Ross and Brand had done.

You criticise Hyde for 'dredging it all up'. Baillie has been approached by numerous hacks since Saturday, has given more than one interview and appeared on Talk TV.

And how exactly is Hyde's article any worse than what Brand has written, said on stage, radio and TV, and on his various channels, even before we get into what he is alleged to have done offstage.

Nonetheless, despite not agreeing with that part of your post I wouldn't be commenting if it wasn't for the next bit

ska invita said:
(also at the start of the article she says Russel Brand would've likely been a bully at school - he wasn't - he was a depressed teenager who had also been sexually abused and brought up in a very weird family ... in fact he was diagnosed as bipolar as an adult amongst his other psychological problems)
Click to expand...

WTF. Your source for this is a clickbait explainer in the Metro which is ultimately drawn from Brand's own claims about himself and his past. Having read Hyde's article through the prism of who and what she is rather than what she is saying, I am a little puzzled that you should then cite this tabloid 'summary' of his version of events apparently uncritically. (It also shouldn't be necessary to point out that he could be all of the things you list and still be a bully, and that those things wouldn't make any bullying 'understandable'). But Hyde's target in that sentence isn't even Brand - it's some of the people who took his 'left political' phase seriously enough to court him.

For a certain type of mournfully uncool man on the left, Russell Brand was quite the excitement. You only had to watch their little faces in his presence – lit up at being fleetingly indulged by the kind of guy who would probably have bullied them at school.
Click to expand...

I don't think much of this passage at all, but why on earth is it necessary to defend Brand from this entirely rhetorical point in those terms?
 
The YouTube demonetization thing. I'm curious about this. Where is the line drawn? Have they also demonetized Tim Westwood? Paul Oakenfold? I haven't heard so. Both also have allegations of sexual misconduct against them.
 
Serge Forward said:
That said, I suspect a fair few on the left didn't know who he was enough to call him out, apart from him being just some other twat on telly, and only took any notice of him when he publicly started coming out with lefty sounding stuff.
Click to expand...
I honestly have better things to do than watching telly to decide who's dodgy and who isn't. Not my culture.
 
klang said:
never seen this show....does it go out live or is there an editing process afterwards with someone deciding 'yer, that's alright'?
Click to expand...
It will have been prerecorded and edited. So yes, someone decided that it was alright. If any of the other guests had objected in any way, it would no doubt have been deemed unfunny and the whole section cut. And that guest would probably have a question mark against their name regarding future invitations - difficult, not funny, etc.
 
skyscraper101 said:
The YouTube demonetization thing. I'm curious about this. Where is the line drawn? Have they also demonetized Tim Westwood? Paul Oakenfold? I haven't heard so. Both also have allegations of sexual misconduct against them.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing it's used as a final straw, once YT's reputation is seriously on the line. Clicks are clicks until shit hits the fan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Elpenor
Rewatching the 1997 General Election (bbc iplayer) and memories of it
2 3 4 5
Replies
132
Views
5K
isvicthere?
isvicthere?
G
Kemi Badenoch discussion
13 14 15 16 17
Replies
495
Views
21K
pbsmooth
P
Jeff Robinson
Thread to document institutional animal abuse
2
Replies
52
Views
2K
bcuster
bcuster
tim
Politicians and sexual abuse.
Replies
4
Views
455
cupid_stunt
cupid_stunt
phildwyer
Tory MP Arrested For Rape, Drugs
2
Replies
51
Views
3K
andysays
andysays
Back
Top Bottom