When the Johnny Depp and Amber Heard defamation trial concluded a year or so ago, I thought we were done with accusations of sexual misconduct against middle-aged men who dress like they are in an Aerosmith cover band.
After all has been said and done, it's time for all of us to evolve. We need to get to the "Next Station on the Road to Human Evolution." Or else, we'll continually be preoccupied with the transgressions of others.
Insightful article. Although I have to take issue with waiting for a police investigation being a form of defence of Brand. Reports should be taken as valid evidence, but the victims reports only have validity in an appropriate and legitimate public forum and its conclusions, and with regard to crime that can only be a jury. The way the media has gone about this case so far is wrong. They have a role to play in broadcasting that Brand has been accused of crime of a sexual nature. This is more than enough to encourage other victims to come forward to the police. However, the media has exposed crucial details of what the victims reported. This will have contaminated the evidence other victims might come forward with - human memory is highly fluid and malleable especially with emotionally charged content - and that could corrupt a police investigation and potentially end with an acquittal. Believe victims but distrust human memory and public discourse which is deeply infected with bias, hearsay, and assumptions.
No. I'm sorry, but fucking no. You don't understand the first thing about SA victims, and how fucking hard it is for victims to go to the cops, who are notoriously bad at dealing with them. This report has not "contaminated" anything.
"Innocent until proven guilty" is for the justice system; it was never intended to muzzle reporters from publishing exposes on serial predators.
And FWIW, BECAUSE this report came out, another victim has come forward about an assault by Brand in 2003. That person went to the cops, and nothing came of their report. Which is often what happens when rape victims report.
Good to see YouTube taking the moral high ground about alleged offenses: Brand can stay on YouTube, but YouTube will pocket 100 percent of his advertising revenue rather than 40 percent. Must have been a tough business decision.
“At press time, the baffled nation asked what had made Brand into such an unhinged and deeply frustrated person if all of this hadn’t kicked it off years ago.”
I agree mostly, but maybe not on the media-nihilism. Hasn't Louis CK's more mainstream prospects been dampened considerably since his creepiness came out? I know he's still 'fine' by most measures. He still does sold-out comedy shows, goes on podcasts, etc, but his massive reach has been severely limited. On the other hand, Brand has always seemed more of a fringe celebrity by comparison, making these accusations--which are likely true in my opinion--ego-syntonic to his hardcore fanbase. Either way, I'm curious to see how it all plays out.
I suppose the term whipped air isn't new, but this is the first I have read it. Love it.
I know zero about this man other than he once was married to Perry and that he interviewed Sam Harris, whom I do follow. Sam got a lot of heat for going on Brand's podcast. I didn't listen.
He never interested me and never will. No sweat off my nose. But if he did what he is accused of, may he rot with the others of his ilk.
Why do fools have platforms of any kind? I am quite tired of stupid and insane.
Brand runs his own content on social media. He makes lots of money. He has millions of subscribers. He probably has even more today than he has a week ago.
Four media outlets spent an entire year trying to come up with something. They found only one instance of a potential crime, and even that would be difficult to get into a court room.
Given the degree of his very open promiscuity, the surprise is how little the media uncovered. Surely he was an easy mark, low hanging fruit, and yet, here we are, with scant to discuss.
Brand was paid a lot of money to be a sexually proactive, and often creepy. Now everyone wants to be retrospectively outraged?
Perry merely became aware, later, that the marriage break up wasn't her fault, other things were presumably going on in his life. Evidently that information gave her some peace of mind about the end of the relationship and she could move on. LOTS in the media are sheep-like citing that old quote as if Perry holds information of a criminal or horribly salacious or disturbing nature. Scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Brand makes more money from his social media efforts than he ever did in MSM. He got a standing ovation at his show yesterday. He'll probably get one next week as well.
If anyone was hoping to bring him down, they've failed, and they've failed the women that they featured in the reporting.
I believe what the women say, but criminal? Or even plausible civil cases? We'll see if any lawyers want to take them on as clients.
I don't know what's been achieved with this year long investigation. That's concerning.
The problem is not that he was promiscuous. It's that he's a rapist.
Four women accused him of rape, *including the 16-year-old*. I read your other comment and I don't understand why you are downplaying the accusations. It's not just that his behavior was annoying. He assaulted them. Then there are people who accused him of exposing himself to them, etc. AT WORK. These rumors were swirling around him for years. At least two comedians have openly accused him of being a predator. The reporters were not "fishing"; they were investigating because that's how reporting works.
Your comments are very weird.
It may not affect his current career as a right-wing grifter. His career as an actor has been dead since 2018, when Katherine Ryan openly accused him during Roast Battle.
Hi - no, he has been accused of various inappropriate and aggressive sexual behaviors, including one potential rape. These are accusations, not legally proven. Talk to any lawyer, and the probability of getting the rape accusation into a court room might be moderate, and the probability of a conviction likewise moderate. Apparently British police are now investigating. We'll see how that goes, given that all women have not previously spoken to police, and all have sought to remain anonymous.
It remains unclear what they were hoping to achieve. Although as you and others have asserted, he's guilty of being a rapist, so I guess that's what the point was, and yes, he has swiftly lost his career. He has no legal recourse, and is not anonymous. Case closed.
No, there are TWO rapes and one attempted. You have clearly not watched the doc or read the article. Perhaps you don't consider forced oral penetration as rape, because for some reason you want to carry water for this person who wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire, but it is. One woman he raped up against a wall, one he orally penetrated, and one he tried to rape. That particular woman was a friend.
Gee, I wonder why these women would possibly want to remain anonymous. Certainly not because of people like you, who disbelieve and downplay. One woman went to a rape crisis center and there's a contemporaneous report but I guess that's just not good enough for you. Also, I don't know what you know about rape laws, but exposing yourself to someone is illegal, as is forcing yourself on someone and penetrating them orally or p-in-v, or even if you don't manage to rape them. You seem very confused.
He hasn't had a career since 2018, when he was outed as a predator by other comedians. It's been an open secret for years. And the UK has very strong libel laws, so yeah, he DOES have legal resource if they're lying.
They're not.
And you? Are no sister. "Potential rape." Fuck off.
I'll have to take your word on your understanding of all of the allegations. The police investigation should have no trouble mounting criminal charges, then.
I haven't followed Brand's career at all. I thought he'd largely disappeared long before 2018. Someone who still earned millions a year hasn't exactly lost their career.
I've not suggested that the women are lying, only that the threshold for criminal charges would be difficult, with one exception. As you've noted from your examination of the evidence, the allegations would easily meet the threshold for police to proceed.
You don't have to take my word. It's in the documentary.
He's lost his career as a mainstream performer. As you said: he largely disappeared after 2018 (which is what I said in the comment you are replying to). That's because he was outed as a predator. You have both made the argument that he has and hasn't lost his career, which is why I say you seem confused. You also don't seem to read what I write.
And since you don' t seem to know the allegations, the evidence OR the law, I don't know how you can know that they don't meet a threshold, or would have a hard time meeting it. There are other crimes besides rape. And there are other reasons to expose a predator than taking him to court. Sometimes social justice is all you're going to get, because that's how our world works. It doesn't mean it's not worth it to expose them, and I find it weird that you and Michael are asking why they'd bother.
Sorry, I'm done here. You just saying what you want without dealing with what I write. It's like banging my head against a wall. Life is too short for that.
I don't know what they're hoping to achieve, either. To my knowledge, none of the cases has been taken up by the police. I also don't know that it's accurate to say "four media outlets spent an entire year trying to come up with something" because it suggests that they were on a fishing expedition. If that's true, I have no idea. Also, there's a difference between being the character of a sexual reprobate and actually being one. If there is retrospective outrage, it has to do with the allegations of abuse, not the promiscuity. As to whether or not his career will suffer, I agree with you that probably it will not.
A number of media outlets collaborated, hardly unusual in investigative reporting. They claim they spent a year on this story. Why would you question the statements about how the final story came about? These aren't my claims, I wouldn't know unless they told us. So yes, it seems they were fishing.
They came up with a handful of women who had short term relationships with him, and towards whom he behaved like an arsehole on a number of specific occasions. There instances were between 10 to 17 years ago. A couple of the instances were momentary and no doubt irksome, and were workplace related.
Again, I believe what the women are saying. I just don't know what to make of this investigative effort, the almost ordinary behavior of Brand (men don't need to be famous to behave like that), and what the women now want. One has been upset about Brand's reaction, including that he hasn't denied being involved with a 16 year old. *Scratches head.* Or that he would send a car to pick her up. Icky, yes, but not illegal or criminal. He hasn't denied because it was true.
I'm puzzled. I'm sad for the women who perhaps hoped for some outcome, but I don't know what they wanted from telling their stories.
After all has been said and done, it's time for all of us to evolve. We need to get to the "Next Station on the Road to Human Evolution." Or else, we'll continually be preoccupied with the transgressions of others.
That last paragraph is a cold hard reality to swallow.
Insightful article. Although I have to take issue with waiting for a police investigation being a form of defence of Brand. Reports should be taken as valid evidence, but the victims reports only have validity in an appropriate and legitimate public forum and its conclusions, and with regard to crime that can only be a jury. The way the media has gone about this case so far is wrong. They have a role to play in broadcasting that Brand has been accused of crime of a sexual nature. This is more than enough to encourage other victims to come forward to the police. However, the media has exposed crucial details of what the victims reported. This will have contaminated the evidence other victims might come forward with - human memory is highly fluid and malleable especially with emotionally charged content - and that could corrupt a police investigation and potentially end with an acquittal. Believe victims but distrust human memory and public discourse which is deeply infected with bias, hearsay, and assumptions.
No. I'm sorry, but fucking no. You don't understand the first thing about SA victims, and how fucking hard it is for victims to go to the cops, who are notoriously bad at dealing with them. This report has not "contaminated" anything.
"Innocent until proven guilty" is for the justice system; it was never intended to muzzle reporters from publishing exposes on serial predators.
And FWIW, BECAUSE this report came out, another victim has come forward about an assault by Brand in 2003. That person went to the cops, and nothing came of their report. Which is often what happens when rape victims report.
Good to see YouTube taking the moral high ground about alleged offenses: Brand can stay on YouTube, but YouTube will pocket 100 percent of his advertising revenue rather than 40 percent. Must have been a tough business decision.
Gotta laugh. 🤣
The Onion cuts right to the bone, as always:
“At press time, the baffled nation asked what had made Brand into such an unhinged and deeply frustrated person if all of this hadn’t kicked it off years ago.”
https://www.theonion.com/nation-could-have-sworn-russell-brand-was-already-convi-1850849838
Personally, I find it hard to take people who thought they could do heroin with no consequences because they're "different" seriously.
They seem rather dull witted and the heroin addiction doesn't seem to make them any smarter, just more conniving.
How does a heroin addiction make anyone more “conniving”?
This. 1000%. You make things so clear in the posts that you write. It is appreciated and enlightening.
LAWD bring out the body bag
I agree mostly, but maybe not on the media-nihilism. Hasn't Louis CK's more mainstream prospects been dampened considerably since his creepiness came out? I know he's still 'fine' by most measures. He still does sold-out comedy shows, goes on podcasts, etc, but his massive reach has been severely limited. On the other hand, Brand has always seemed more of a fringe celebrity by comparison, making these accusations--which are likely true in my opinion--ego-syntonic to his hardcore fanbase. Either way, I'm curious to see how it all plays out.
I suppose the term whipped air isn't new, but this is the first I have read it. Love it.
I know zero about this man other than he once was married to Perry and that he interviewed Sam Harris, whom I do follow. Sam got a lot of heat for going on Brand's podcast. I didn't listen.
He never interested me and never will. No sweat off my nose. But if he did what he is accused of, may he rot with the others of his ilk.
Why do fools have platforms of any kind? I am quite tired of stupid and insane.
Same reason and same way people have a Substack.
Brand runs his own content on social media. He makes lots of money. He has millions of subscribers. He probably has even more today than he has a week ago.
"Why do fools have platforms of any kind? I am quite tired of stupid and insane."
Welcome to the internet age.
Four media outlets spent an entire year trying to come up with something. They found only one instance of a potential crime, and even that would be difficult to get into a court room.
Given the degree of his very open promiscuity, the surprise is how little the media uncovered. Surely he was an easy mark, low hanging fruit, and yet, here we are, with scant to discuss.
Brand was paid a lot of money to be a sexually proactive, and often creepy. Now everyone wants to be retrospectively outraged?
Perry merely became aware, later, that the marriage break up wasn't her fault, other things were presumably going on in his life. Evidently that information gave her some peace of mind about the end of the relationship and she could move on. LOTS in the media are sheep-like citing that old quote as if Perry holds information of a criminal or horribly salacious or disturbing nature. Scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Brand makes more money from his social media efforts than he ever did in MSM. He got a standing ovation at his show yesterday. He'll probably get one next week as well.
If anyone was hoping to bring him down, they've failed, and they've failed the women that they featured in the reporting.
I believe what the women say, but criminal? Or even plausible civil cases? We'll see if any lawyers want to take them on as clients.
I don't know what's been achieved with this year long investigation. That's concerning.
The problem is not that he was promiscuous. It's that he's a rapist.
Four women accused him of rape, *including the 16-year-old*. I read your other comment and I don't understand why you are downplaying the accusations. It's not just that his behavior was annoying. He assaulted them. Then there are people who accused him of exposing himself to them, etc. AT WORK. These rumors were swirling around him for years. At least two comedians have openly accused him of being a predator. The reporters were not "fishing"; they were investigating because that's how reporting works.
Your comments are very weird.
It may not affect his current career as a right-wing grifter. His career as an actor has been dead since 2018, when Katherine Ryan openly accused him during Roast Battle.
Hi - no, he has been accused of various inappropriate and aggressive sexual behaviors, including one potential rape. These are accusations, not legally proven. Talk to any lawyer, and the probability of getting the rape accusation into a court room might be moderate, and the probability of a conviction likewise moderate. Apparently British police are now investigating. We'll see how that goes, given that all women have not previously spoken to police, and all have sought to remain anonymous.
It remains unclear what they were hoping to achieve. Although as you and others have asserted, he's guilty of being a rapist, so I guess that's what the point was, and yes, he has swiftly lost his career. He has no legal recourse, and is not anonymous. Case closed.
No, there are TWO rapes and one attempted. You have clearly not watched the doc or read the article. Perhaps you don't consider forced oral penetration as rape, because for some reason you want to carry water for this person who wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire, but it is. One woman he raped up against a wall, one he orally penetrated, and one he tried to rape. That particular woman was a friend.
Gee, I wonder why these women would possibly want to remain anonymous. Certainly not because of people like you, who disbelieve and downplay. One woman went to a rape crisis center and there's a contemporaneous report but I guess that's just not good enough for you. Also, I don't know what you know about rape laws, but exposing yourself to someone is illegal, as is forcing yourself on someone and penetrating them orally or p-in-v, or even if you don't manage to rape them. You seem very confused.
He hasn't had a career since 2018, when he was outed as a predator by other comedians. It's been an open secret for years. And the UK has very strong libel laws, so yeah, he DOES have legal resource if they're lying.
They're not.
And you? Are no sister. "Potential rape." Fuck off.
I'll have to take your word on your understanding of all of the allegations. The police investigation should have no trouble mounting criminal charges, then.
I haven't followed Brand's career at all. I thought he'd largely disappeared long before 2018. Someone who still earned millions a year hasn't exactly lost their career.
I've not suggested that the women are lying, only that the threshold for criminal charges would be difficult, with one exception. As you've noted from your examination of the evidence, the allegations would easily meet the threshold for police to proceed.
You don't have to take my word. It's in the documentary.
He's lost his career as a mainstream performer. As you said: he largely disappeared after 2018 (which is what I said in the comment you are replying to). That's because he was outed as a predator. You have both made the argument that he has and hasn't lost his career, which is why I say you seem confused. You also don't seem to read what I write.
And since you don' t seem to know the allegations, the evidence OR the law, I don't know how you can know that they don't meet a threshold, or would have a hard time meeting it. There are other crimes besides rape. And there are other reasons to expose a predator than taking him to court. Sometimes social justice is all you're going to get, because that's how our world works. It doesn't mean it's not worth it to expose them, and I find it weird that you and Michael are asking why they'd bother.
Sorry, I'm done here. You just saying what you want without dealing with what I write. It's like banging my head against a wall. Life is too short for that.
Yep.
I don't know what they're hoping to achieve, either. To my knowledge, none of the cases has been taken up by the police. I also don't know that it's accurate to say "four media outlets spent an entire year trying to come up with something" because it suggests that they were on a fishing expedition. If that's true, I have no idea. Also, there's a difference between being the character of a sexual reprobate and actually being one. If there is retrospective outrage, it has to do with the allegations of abuse, not the promiscuity. As to whether or not his career will suffer, I agree with you that probably it will not.
A number of media outlets collaborated, hardly unusual in investigative reporting. They claim they spent a year on this story. Why would you question the statements about how the final story came about? These aren't my claims, I wouldn't know unless they told us. So yes, it seems they were fishing.
They came up with a handful of women who had short term relationships with him, and towards whom he behaved like an arsehole on a number of specific occasions. There instances were between 10 to 17 years ago. A couple of the instances were momentary and no doubt irksome, and were workplace related.
Again, I believe what the women are saying. I just don't know what to make of this investigative effort, the almost ordinary behavior of Brand (men don't need to be famous to behave like that), and what the women now want. One has been upset about Brand's reaction, including that he hasn't denied being involved with a 16 year old. *Scratches head.* Or that he would send a car to pick her up. Icky, yes, but not illegal or criminal. He hasn't denied because it was true.
I'm puzzled. I'm sad for the women who perhaps hoped for some outcome, but I don't know what they wanted from telling their stories.