Discussion

Main Board| Accommodation Wanted| Accommodation Offered
Start a new discussion on this board

Let your next career move come to you.

Trial by media

I used to really like Russell Brand, even bought his books.  If what has been alleged is true and he is tried and found guilty in court then all is well and he should pay his penance but this trial my media is pretty insane.  We are being shown clips from his various acts over the years and yes, looking at them through todays eyes, it wouldn't be allowed.  People would be horrified and disgusted but this was a comedian who was rising all the time in the 2000's.  Comedy was different.  Jeez Benny Hill used to pretend to run around after school girls and if you watch TV from old, a guy's eyes would always follow a pretty school girl.  Disgusting we think now (and may have done then) but it was the time we were living in.  Can we constantly keep going back in history to right wrongs that were acceptable at the time? I don't know.  To be clear I am abhorred and he should get everything he will get coming to him if found guilty of sexual assault/rape but its just another Philip/Huw scenario except this time with allegations.  The press just love this stuff.

I've always found him deeply sleazy and never understood how he got acting jobs as the one film I saw him in he was basically playing himself.  There's also a difference between his comedy act (which could be funny but in a sleazy manner) and his actual behaviour though and what he was doing wasn't acceptable at the time either and at least one of his employers has acknowledged this.  Even in the early noughties his agent knew that having a relationship with a schoolgirl was not acceptable hence his suggestion that she be referred to as a goddaughter or similar if any photos emerged of her and Brand together and advice that they shouldn't be seen together in public.  I'm not a fan of judging historic acts by current moral standards but what he's accused of also fell foul of the moral standards of the day when he did it.

The recordings of what he said openly on Radio 2 in 2008 before the Sachs' issue were abhorrent by the standards of the time and (a) nobody did anything and (b) you still bought his sh1t book.

 

he's wealthy.  he can easily seek justice through the libel courts if he so chooses.

 

I assume you also abhor all the investigative work into politicians by the media?  such as jeffrey archer? jonathan aitken? are you saying that they should never have published their allegations?  better just to sit on them?

 

I don't think you can compare the era of Benny Hill (1960s/70s/80s) with that of Russell Brand (2000+).  I always found RB to be a repulsive creep with no appeal whatsoever, but some people like to be shocked and sometimes that passes for comedy.  He was obviously indulged by employers and so his behaviour never really was thought to be OK at the time.   

he's done a rapey wapey, and e's bang to rights.  All this "ooh, but let's wait for the police and the courts!!!" is nonsense.  The job of the media is to shine a light - particularly true investigative journalists.  This is The Times and Channel 4 - they spent years meticulously researching this.  It's not a hatchet job by one of those fake media things like GB-poos or UnTurd.  

i thought the end of Hugo Rifkind's article in the times was on point

 

"I can see why some find this new world to be cruel and unforgiving. Often it is. Reports about Brand seem meticulous, but lives can and have been ruined over swirling innuendo with far less basis, or none at all.

Think back, though, to when Brand was banging away. Was that time, do you think, less cruel? When it was all a laugh. When, long before there were Twitter mobs, and petitions, and a whole new economy of outrage, the only person who seemed to care at all was a taxi driver. Peering over his shoulder at a girl who could have been his daughter. Fresh out of school, and doing her make-up in the back of his cab."

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/it-used-to-be-a-laugh-except-for-the…

 

Apart from of course all those 'comedians' and personalities that have appeared on TV shows with him over the years and laughed like hyenas at his 'humour'...

It’s not a ‘trial by media’. People are entitled to have opinions based on sound investigative reporting.

On a related note, the Venn diagram of those urging us to lOok aT wHat iS rEaLLy hAppEniNg hEre and those who fell over themselves to condemn huw edwards is a perfect circle.

He was always obviously a total sleazebag. 

What does that have to do with anything?  Women (or at least a sh1tload of them) like(d) the sleazebag.  He's accused of rape.

Mistee I am half with you. I wouldn't say I liked him, and did not buy any books, but I found him entertaining, he was a good value chat show guest. Obviously it turns out he should be in jail, but you are correct, he is very far from the only comedian who made awful, sleazy jokes, relatively recently.

I didn't specifically watch or listen to his own shows so maybe I didn't have all the context, but I can't say now that I found him more objectionable than say Jimmy Carr or Frankie Boyle etc, at the time.

This is not really comparable to Huw Edwards. Brand is being accused of sexual assault and rape on the basis of, as others have said, a four year investigation by two reputable news organisations. Edwards was, it appears, hastily accused of misconduct which seems less than sexual assault, and which turned out to be freely undertaken with the "victim", whom the Sun had not actually spoken to.

Precisely 3 dux. I recall being very vocal and critical on here about trial by media for Edwards but am more than happy in this particular instance to be accused of utter hypocrisy.

I'm not defending him, just saying I don't think everyone can now say they always knew he was  obviously a sex offender. I don't watch standup on TV much, but I go to comedy clubs quite often. He wasn't a massive outlier in that type of act.

I find it odd that people went on his show knowing what he was like and only now complain about his comments.  I also find trial by media very distasteful whether Huw Edwards or Russel Brand. Thus does not mean I have any sympathy with him if he is proven to be a rapist   Sixteen year old girls and others need to be protected. 

The overriding take away from all of these things is that the media and celeb world needs to do more to put junior staff in a position where they feel they can report things without it affecting their careers.

There's a fresh story this morning about Brand offering to endorse a book with a comment after the writer slept with him then withdrawing his endorsement when she subsequently refused to sleep with him again.  Even 20 years ago that kind of behaviour shouldn't have been acceptable.

Rose bear in mind that some of them will have been encouraged to go on his show by their agent for the publicity notwithstanding concerns about his behaviour.  It's a sad situation when people have to swallow their concerns for the good for the good of their career.

Surely someone like Vanessa Feltz didn’t need to do it and when she did, why didn’t she complain at the time? Maybe she did. Agents have much to answer for clearly. 

He's one of these people who knows lots of obscure words and pieces them altogether in a way designed to bamboozle many people but when you actually break down his verbal diarroea he has very little of value to say.  It is just posh sounding noise.  He would probably do well as a lawyer.

 one of these people who knows lots of obscure words and pieces them altogether in a way designed to bamboozle many people but when you actually break down his verbal diarroea he has very little of value to say.  It is just posh sounding noise.

not unlike BJ then... oh...  

He always seemed like a student who found that, to his amassment, wandering around unwashed in a long coat spouting pretentious shit actually continued to work as a fully fledged adult. And was lucrative to boot.

 

After a while, I suspect, he began to believe his own bullshit and hype as it was, after all, working. Until it didn’t ...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7IHJ66wj9g

 

It does seem really strange that only 14 years ago people in the BBC deemed it acceptable to spend tax payers money calling up a dad to tell him you had knobbed his daughter.

 

Maybe we should have equality now and [insert hot love island chick] should live stream call up Cherie Blair and tell them they have just orlad Ewen Blair.

If he isn’t charged, but his career - and all income sources - ends, is that acceptable? Absent a criminal conviction he is a free man. Society has in effect passed sentence. See it. Say it. Sorted. 

It does seem really strange that only 14 years ago people in the BBC deemed it acceptable to spend tax payers money calling up a dad to tell him you had knobbed his daughter.

If you're referring to the call to Andrew Sachs, Sachs was the woman's grandfather and it wasn't deemed acceptable to the BBC because there was a massive outcry and RB was sacked. 

Maybe we should have equality now and [insert hot love island chick] should live stream call up Cherie Blair and tell them they have just orlad Ewen Blair.

weird comment.  What is your point? 

Mind you, a fair few rock legends from yesteryear will I am sure be taking very careful legal and PR advice as to what may now start to come out about their activities on tour.

To what extent can they rely (or the public be willing to accept)  LP Hartley's The Go-Between defence...?

We are all guilty in that we facilitated an environment in which Brand and similar types thrived.

We laughed at the TV shows, we bought tickets for the stage shows, we fed in to the ever-increasing demand for new and outrageous content.

A lot of people knew what was going on in the background but kept their mouths shut because they themselves were on the path to stardom and / or gravy train. 

A lot more people probably kept their mouths shut because they were in junior roles in the media industry and knew it would be seriously professionally damaging if they spoke up.

That said, I am not one for trial by media.  There are a number of people who were the subject of extremely serious allegations in the last 15 years that never went to Court or went to Court and they were found not guilty.  

Kimmy - my sarcasm is not translating well on RoF.

 

And ah yes it was the grandfather not the father. 

The point I was trying to make about the BBC was that it was 'deemed acceptable within the BBC'. One senior BBC bod was on record saying it was very funny. Thankfully the general public did not agree. 

Like Savile, Brand definitely had the ick about him. 

Maybe for that reason his comedy passed me by almost entirely. I only just found out the content of the answerphone messages he left Andrew Sachs.

I’m with EP. The danger of trial by media is the Kevin Spacey situation. He lost his livelihood due to the media but when it went to court he was found not guilty on all 9 counts.

Much as (like all of Rof) I have always despised RB as a misogynist, unfunny prat, I’m not sure losing his livelihood over allegations made by the media is fair. The evidence seems very strong against him and hopefully enough to convict,

Very glad to see there is now at least one formal accusation and hope there are more and he is found guilty. Until then I shall continue my campaign of simply ignoring him and not watching anything he’s involved with.

Unfortunately this will have zero effect on him as there is no change but maybe his former fans will follow suit.

People like RB will take their chances on a criminal prosecution. If they disagree with the "court of public opinion" they should cry libel,  but he won't. Because. 

Well I have not seen anything he has done for years and years and most of what I have seen in clips in the media over the last few days I have never seen before.  I'd see him on the mainstream channels and although a bit risque I think I missed his more unsavoury comments and innuendoes etc.  So as I said I DID really like him, I thought him funny, a bit different and I don't know, just something about him (and no I wasn't thinking rapist etc etc). HOWEVER it seems that I was missing quite a bit of his act.  That said I still don't think trial by media is fair.  The police are now probing and it will be all looked into properly and well.... we'll see where it goes.  I think some of the posters simply dislike him and it's like "jump on the bandwagon of hate" which is what I despise.

I've always found him talentless and a bit of a knob 

But a few distasteful jokes don't prove any criminality, just that he is in fact a bit of a knob 

Justice should be done 

As for...

You With The Face19 Sep 23 10:22

Reply | 

Report

I used to really like Russell Brand, even bought his books. 

I'd prefer to admit being a paedophile.

Really???  Maybe you should get a trial by media.  What a very odd thing to say.

So many people have spent a decade or so citing RB as the thinking man's alcoholic drug addict. So if they have a problem they say "yeah well as Russell Brand said..." then they start quoting his "how fu cked up are you" speech about addiction like he's some sort of savant or Messiah.

I'm bored of that.  

He's not the Messiah. He's just a very naughty boy.

The real news broke about Spacey with his dog walking episode in Kennington Park way back when. It was then only a matter of time. And he's a much better actor than Brand fwiw.

Join the discussion

Login Register