Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

littlebabyjesus said:
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.
Click to expand...
there's something said for leaving the edit as is (from the pov of the objecting guest) to show them for what wankers they are.
 
klang said:
there's something said for leaving the edit as is (from the pov of the objecting guest) to show them for what wankers they are.
Click to expand...
Except that clearly that's not what the programme producers would have thought. They invite people like Ross and Brand on the show to do precisely this kind of thing - and of course Jimmy Carr was the host. It's a whole enabling culture.
 
It was all caused by Ross in that particular Big Fat Quiz clip. He made a big show of Allen being a young “sexually attractive” woman and that ‘those two over there’ (project much?) were a danger to her. Having created that massively awkward situation, how the hell was everybody else (including ‘those two’) supposed to deal with it? It felt like the others had to recover the situation as best they could.

I’m aware, in saying that, that one of ‘those two’ has indeed turned out to be a rapist, which makes it difficult retrospectively to defend anything he has to say. But my point is that clips like that don’t really help in suggesting “aha! Here he was!” If you don’t already know Brand’s a rapist, it seems like a perfectly reasonable attempt to defend his friend against accusations of being a rapist! And you might think “yuck” anyway, but those who are still defending Brand aren’t going to change their mind when you show them such clips. It’ll be the opposite — they’ll just think it shows people are desperate to hang him regardless.
 
Wilf said:
We've probably had a few decades of comics and presenters merging 70s attitudes, laddishness with a veneer of modern irony.
Click to expand...
"70s attitudes". ROFL.

While I do understand that we so-called boomers are entirely responsible for everything that's wrong with your miserable lives, in this case I think not. The culture which gave rise to Ross and later on Brand fermented among some of 'Thatcher's children' in the 80s, in large part as a backlash against everything the 70s stood for, went mainstream in the 90s and became something rather darker and more unpleasant in the 'oughts'. If we must play the 'Generation Game' then it really is time that Gen X started owning it's own shit :)
 
Lurdan said:
"70s attitudes". ROFL.

While I do understand that we so-called boomers are entirely responsible for everything that's wrong with your miserable lives, in this case I think not. The culture which gave rise to Ross and later on Brand fermented among some of 'Thatcher's children' in the 80s, in large part as a backlash against everything the 70s stood for, went mainstream in the 90s and became something rather darker and more unpleasant in the 'oughts'. If we must play the 'Generation Game' then it really is time that Gen X started owning it's own shit :)
Click to expand...
Yes.
 
girasol said:
It really is depressing and extremely ignorant. How many women would put themselves under the pressure and scrutiny for a lie???? Same thing with Andrew and Virginia Roberts/Giuffre and countless others. I find it very hard to trust/respect people who think like this to be honest. Thankfully no one in my feed does this.
Click to expand...
It's all part of this historical narrative that women are lying and manipulative. I suppose if you explain how horrific the experience of SA survivors is in the 'justice' system to them they'll just go 'buT wOmeN r sO EmotIOnaL and irRatiOnal' at you
 
kabbes said:
It was all caused by Ross in that particular Big Fat Quiz clip. He made a big show of Allen being a young “sexually attractive” woman and that ‘those two over there’ (project much?) were a danger to her. Having created that massively awkward situation, how the hell was everybody else (including ‘those two’) supposed to deal with it? It felt like the others had to recover the situation as best they could.

I’m aware, in saying that, that one of ‘those two’ has indeed turned out to be a rapist, which makes it difficult retrospectively to defend anything he has to say. But my point is that clips like that don’t really help in suggesting “aha! Here he was!” If you don’t already know Brand’s a rapist, it seems like a perfectly reasonable attempt to defend his friend against accusations of being a rapist! And you might think “yuck” anyway, but those who are still defending Brand aren’t going to change their mind when you show them such clips. It’ll be the opposite — they’ll just think it shows people are desperate to hang him regardless.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree. That clip is mostly about how vile Jonathan Ross is. However, it is also true that they recovered the situation so well that the producers kept it for the final edit.
 
Lurdan said:
"70s attitudes". ROFL.

While I do understand that we so-called boomers are entirely responsible for everything that's wrong with your miserable lives, in this case I think not. The culture which gave rise to Ross and later on Brand fermented among some of 'Thatcher's children' in the 80s, in large part as a backlash against everything the 70s stood for, went mainstream in the 90s and became something rather darker and more unpleasant in the 'oughts'. If we must play the 'Generation Game' then it really is time that Gen X started owning it's own shit :)
Click to expand...
I used to run an anti racist football comic in the early 90s and one of the main characters was '70s Man' who'd been in a coma and come back to football with all the terrible attitudes of that decade.

But I also did a strip about some contemporary 'hip' 90s dudes and had a pop at that fucking awful Loaded magazine. As you say, it was different.

1695222720376.png
 
pbsmooth said:
Why? Seems perfectly valid to me. He makes money by positioning himself as outside the mainstream and the little guy sticking it to the man. This shows he is not a little guy. And he is paying the ultimate defender of "the man".
Click to expand...
I suppose some Podrick could have knocked him up a Freeman of the land defence:rolleyes:
 
pbsmooth said:
normal people don't have incredibly expensive lawyers on a retainer when they haven't been charged with a crime...
Click to expand...
Actually, can thoroughly not recommend one in Bridgewater, who as well as being fucking useless charges £100 ph more. And I can think of a fair few decent law firms that charge a lot more, though CR have the name when it comes to potential deformation (largely from run ins with Private Eye)
 
skyscraper101 said:
So basically Westwood and Oakenfold aren't big enough to force their hand.
Click to expand...

Oakenfold's may not even have been monetised in the first place. But in any case neither is significant enough to really show up unless someone actively went to youtube and said 'y'know x has a channel, you need to demonetise it'. Brand was getting 3/4m views/video several times/week. And frankly they should have kicked him off ages ago, but y'know.

e2a: to be clear I think neither (at least Westwood, I know next to nothing about Oakenfold) should have any presence, but it's fairly likely they've just flown under the radar via insignificance.
 
Last edited:
Oakenfold did the Big Brother theme tune, coincidentally.

I can see why he wouldn't have been demonetised. It's one accusation, which he disputes, brought in a civil court.

Westwood, on the other hand, may very well end up spending his pensionable years in prison. Still not been arrested, but still being investigated. The accusations are multiple and damning.
 
Peoples' behaviour is a function of contemporary sensibilities and laws.

Sensibilities and laws change over time

Present sensibilities are becoming retrospectively enforceable.

This is clearly illogical
 
Lurdan said:
"70s attitudes". ROFL.

While I do understand that we so-called boomers are entirely responsible for everything that's wrong with your miserable lives, in this case I think not. The culture which gave rise to Ross and later on Brand fermented among some of 'Thatcher's children' in the 80s, in large part as a backlash against everything the 70s stood for, went mainstream in the 90s and became something rather darker and more unpleasant in the 'oughts'. If we must play the 'Generation Game' then it really is time that Gen X started owning it's own shit :)
Click to expand...
In terms of 70s attitudes, I was referring to attitudes in comedy (should have said so). As to your wider point, I'm not sure the 70s as a whole gets a pass in terms of gender. Needless to say, I agree that Thatcherism did a lot to undermine what progress had been made, politically, culturally and economically.
 
paul mckenna said:
Peoples' behaviour is a function of contemporary sensibilities and laws.

Sensibilities and laws change over time

Present sensibilities are becoming retrospectively enforceable.

This is clearly illogical
Click to expand...

Are you saying Oakenfold and/or Brand are not accused of doing anything that was illegal at the time?
 
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