Russell Brand - In Plain Sight?

You may be correct though that the middle of the last decade was a particularly low point. This is toe-curling stuff.

 

Javelin

 

No need to hammer home a point.

 

He took his shot, put it to rest.

 

There are loads of his fans defending him on social media and news articles.

 

There's a text message from him in which he apologises for raping someone!

 

Not saying he’s not guilty, just interested in Clive’s view considering he doesn’t believe the verdict of a legal trial that lasted 10 months. But he’s called him a “clown” and that it’s “no surprise”, so the legal bar for guilt just seems to be, ‘do I like them or not’.

Much like the text you refer to, Letby left notes saying she did it, but I believe you and Clive don’t class that as evidence?

 

His Jimmy Saville interview where he offered his naked assistant to him is absolutely awful stuff, yet nobody picked up on it at the time and nobody complained.

 

Letby's note was not a confession though, more like an outpouring of thoughts which does have an element of ambiguity about it.

There doesn't seem to be much to dispute about the 1 specific accusation and Brand in that text message.

Obviously in theory we should wait for a jury to decide but

1 I don't trust jurys after serving on one
And much more importantly, 2 Brand is clearly a wrong un and I've never liked him!

 

The BBC got a good 40k about the Sachs incident.

 

Well it did and it didn’t, it barely got any complaints when it was aired, but the DM amongst others whipped it’s readership into a frenzy and it attracted lots of complaints from people who hadn’t even heard the original show.

Much like the Saville piece, nobody listening live at the time really cared.

I’m not defending the Sachs thing btw, it was awful and extremely ill advised, but the complaints in the main came from people with second hand outrage, and who would never listen to his show.

 

Playing devils advocate, there is a lot of ambiguity about his text, as rape isn’t actually mentioned and it could be interpreted that what is being referred to is him not using a condom. I’d say it’s more ambiguous than “I am evil, I did this”

 

Second hand outrage fully justified in this instance.

Clearly some younger folk gave him licence, read his booky-wooks etc, but still doesn’t amount to him being well liked.

 

I think that makes perfect sense in the light of Brand's usual fare.

Anyone who actually watched/listened to his material on a regular basis would know what they were signing up for, since his content has always been extreme. As such, his usual viewing audience likely wouldn't bat an eyelid.

I do think it's reasonable for people to complain about something they didn't listen to/watch if it's particularly awful, though. You don't have to have seen/heard something at time of broadcast to find it fundamentally unacceptable, especially when talking about something aired on a publicly funded service like the Beeb.

 

Absolutely this. He apologised but didn’t really say what for. It’s not slam dunk evidence unfortunately.

 

It’s very simple. It evidently costs the Beeb about £27.63 an episode to make.

 

Like one of our team's 'performances'?

 

Bit harsh on Russell Brand to compare him to our first team.

 

Not to mention the "Things I hate" thread. Big-shoed bastards the lot of 'em

 

And what’s with those cars?

 

Yeah, ha ha funny car. Squirty flower and red nose. Sinister buggers the lot of them. Always hanging around kids parties too

 

Must resist the obvious party joke here.

 

Innocent until proven guilty.

And after that, are they really proven guilty? Let's not jump to conclusions

 

The latest brouhaha follows a letter by the Chair of the CMS Committee, Caroline Dinenage, to social media companies about the wider media culture issues thrown up and whether Brand can still profit from his ‘content’ including that where he derides charges against him.

This has been seized upon by the conspiraloon mob of right wing agitators as terrible overreach against free speech and the presumption of innocence. Their hero is this is the CEO of Rumble. His reply to Dinenage is retweeted hundreds today, Lawrence Fox, Toby Young, Clare Fox etc etc

Here’s the letter and the reply.

 

I do get where they’re coming from, though. This doesn’t exactly help rubbish the suggestion, does it?

It would make sense if they were asking them to take his content down, because his content was the subject of the allegations in question, if they were inciting hatred, specifically against women, as an example. But his content has nothing to do with the allegations, she is simply asking them to demonetise him, does that genuinely sit comfortably with you?

Businesses are free to choose who they do business with, or otherwise, aka YouTube, that’s their call. But isn’t it getting a bit uncomfortable when government ministers are going after the income of someone who hasn’t even been charged of a crime, let alone convicted, and his content is perfectly legal, non offensive and has no links to the allegations?

 

I entirely agree.

 

She has asked the question. There is an implicit challenge, but that’s for Rumble to consider.

There are two different strands here. One is the potential criminal conduct that cannot be prejudged. The other is Brand’s clearly established misogyny. There is no reason why the State, committed through equality legislation, can’t ask questions about appropriateness.

If Savile had been accused in his lifetime, was he to be allowed to carry on doing radio shows in the interim? No. He would have been suspended or uninvited. Should it be different for Brand, simply because the contractual/publishing arrangements are different?

Let’s see if the DCMS want to push this further. But it’s not an heroic case of free speech under threat, for sure.

 

I'm interested to know how you think the Equality Act might be relevant to this case?

Neither Brand nor his "employers" have engaged in discrimination, so far as I can see.

 

His misogyny has been out in the open for the best part of 20 years, he’s never hidden it and it is well documented, including in his own book.

So is it just a pure coincidence a government minister is trying to pressure various platforms into demonetising him now, based on his (previously) misogynistic behaviour from several years back?

 

Not sure how that is relevant. You know what you know when you know it. More has been evidenced about that behaviour now.

 

Requirement of the Government to promote equality. Combating misogyny comes under that.

Do you believe that the letter is an instruction and undue interference? I think it’s clumsy and verges on overreach, but is careful to not quite pass the line.