The assassination of Russell Brand

Six days in the life of a public disgrace.

It began on Friday night when Russell Brand released a YouTube statement calling the accusations (yet to be released) against him “baroque”. You know, like the music of Vivaldi or the Palace of Versailles.

Long words is long words.

Over the previous week, it became obvious that the story was close to breaking. What this actually means is the small team of journalists at The Times, Sunday Times and Channel 4 finally had to break cover as front pages and schedules were cleared for their story.

Brand was given 8 days to respond to the accusations passed onto him from the newspapers and TV channel.

The world watched as women described their alleged experiences with Brand behind closed doors.

I knew something was up the week before when I was previewing TV for the Times and a mystery Dispatches dropped into the schedules - one and a half hours long - with no listing information. I had been waiting for it.

The Sunday Times story was published online a day early, the Dispatches aired that same night on Channel 4. The world watched as women described their alleged experience with Brand behind closed doors.

It’s only been a few days but it feels like the internet has fallen over itself to get to the next stage of the scandal timeline. From denial to acceptance and back again. “I knew it.” “He didn’t do it.” “It’s a conspiracy.” “It was an open secret.” It’s the usual chaos out there.

But the facts are the interesting bit. Whatever the veracity of the accusations (I think you know if you’ve read me before, that I believe those women), Brand’s agents dropped him almost immediately. His promoter “postponed” his comedy tour, Bipolarisation, refunding all ticket holders.

An Australian festival appearance was nixed. YouTube shut down the monetisation on his channel. Streaming services (apart from Netflix as I type this) have removed his shows from their servers.

The action has been swift and doesn’t exactly say, “We are waiting for the outcome of an inquiry”.

What these newspaper and TV exposés have in common, is that they are already investigations. The scrutiny has already been done and redone, tested by lawyers, combed through by editors, channel heads, lawyers again, lawyers again.

Journalists carefully sift through rumour and third-hand accounts, track down the people mentioned in those rumours, discount anything that can’t be verified.

Then, when a participant is traced and willing to talk, their accounts are corroborated by others who were there at the time of the alleged incident.

Like the woman “Naomi” in the US who described her alleged rape at Brand’s house in LA. She visited a rape crisis centre in the hours that followed, gave them physical evidence, kept phone messages and emails. She has the receipts. That’s rare and, to a journalist, incredibly helpful.

…another well-known predator in another branch of showbusiness…big companies are continuing to work with him despite knowing that a similar newspaper story on him was stopped by his lawyers.

Because you can’t just write something you reckon is true. The frustration when comedians (always women) hint at a predator being an open secret is palpable. “Just name him,” helpful men on Twitter snipe. As if that is an option when our defamation laws prevent us from doing exactly that.

I could stand on a chair now and shout the name of another well-known predator in another branch of showbusiness who big companies are continuing to work with despite knowing that a similar newspaper story on him was stopped by his lawyers.

Another painstaking investigation, the same meticulous checks and verifications made, was stopped with an injunction, a few months ago. Because he’s rich and the lawyers found a way.

I could name him and the same lawyers would come after me and I’m not doing that because I love my house.

The defamation laws obstruct publication, the women at the centre of the stories are full of fear and shame, some don’t make it to the end because they quite understandably lose their nerve. Even those protected by anonymity. Imagine waiting four years.

As a journalist reporting on this kind of story, your job is made almost impossible, like standing next to the house of cards you’ve built and desperately trying to shield it from light breezes, strong gusts, earthquakes, right up until the second your editor finally presses SEND.

A thousand different things can go wrong. As I watched the clock count down to the end of Brand’s 8-day reply period, I didn’t think it would happen.

I thought his lawyers would succeed in the way that the other celebrity’s lawyers had. I thought there was no chance of this reaching daylight.

But it has. The women have been given a chance to speak, to say the thing that women are so often legally prevented from saying. “This awful thing happened to me and I am still suffering the consequences of it.”

And with clockwork predictability, Brand unfurled the banner he has been carefully embroidering since 2017. He declared himself so important to the world that two newspapers and a famously liberal lefty broadcaster would come together, over four years, to destroy him.

I made this video in March when I was bored waiting for the story to land. I added the short clip from his YouTube statement at the weekend. It doesn’t take a genius to see the groundwork being laid. He’s known this story was coming for a long time. In his own words, “I’m aware of news media making phone calls, sending letters to people I know for ages and ages…”

So here’s what I predicted he’d say, because, like I said, it doesn’t take a genius.

It isn’t about the women, it’s just about him.

One newspaper, after his final gig the day the story was published, described him walking out to a rock star’s welcome as the crowd of 2000 stood to applaud him. None of them had seen the 90 minutes of graphic, harrowing testimony on the Channel 4 documentary. Blind faith in action.

One thing I have learned - love isn’t standing by someone when awful accusations are levelled at them. That’s unquestioning worship. Why does that person need you to venerate them? Brand doesn’t want your friendship. He wants you to adore him. Touch the hem. He describes himself below as a “giant” and the people who spread “gossip” about him as “Lilliputians”. That’s not normal.

Theatrical, isn’t it? I find the way he pronounces GIANT at the end really unpleasant and it betrays anger.

Anyway, despite the rigorous investigations by multiple journalists over four years, I am still required to say that Brand denies all the allegations, even as new ones come in, most recently to the Metropolitan police.

He’s going to need a bigger net.

The questions - based on the unproven idea that he’s guilty - begin to arise like spring bulbs. Who knew? Who facilitated his alleged sick campaign of misogynist predation?

I’ve never met a rapist who did it in front of other people. I’ve never met a rapist who told people about it.

You can suspect, guess, get bad vibes, even hear unsubstantiated rumour. But men who do this are manipulative. They don’t drag women into alleyways and hold a knife to their throats.

They work on their victims, test the ground, determine compliance (or the likelihood of silence) before taking such a risk. They often groom the people around their victims. It’s not a simple crime. It’s not “goody” or “baddy”.

In the wake of the horrific revelations about Jimmy Savile, we seemed to promise ourselves, never again.

The same thing will probably happen if the awful things levelled at Brand are true. Never again, we’ll say.

No more men in positions of such complete power that they can’t be taken to task over unacceptable conduct.

But I can tell you they’re going about their days in recording studios and publishing houses and TV studios and on theatre stages as we sit here now.

And no one is saying a damn thing.