I have no skin in this game at all - I neither wish to condemn Brand nor find excuses for him. Some things concern me a bit though; his books, one of which I tried, unsuccessfully, to read: the Booky Wook, I think, are being suppressed by their publishers: but not before they've sucked a lot of profit out of them; are they going to refund that, to women's charities, or victim support? Are we holding our breath at all here?
Cards on the table: I found Brand amusing, years back - until the point at which he chose, with the repulsive Jonathan Ross, to taunt the late Andrew Sachs: at which point he, and Ross, didn't seem remotely funny any more. Of the two, I found Ross the creepier - because he should have known better, and did; and still went along with the oh-so-funny Brand. I suppose he did at least look guilty - if that helps at all.
I would not, though, withdraw Brands' books - many wicked people have published books, of varying degrees of quality; Brand is no Marquis de Sade, but even so: I don't like banning books; even bad books - and I wonder if any future generation can really understand Russell Brand, as perhaps they need to do, without reading his immensely self-regarding confessionals. Publish them and judge him for them, is my view - they don't, after all, reflect much glory on him today.
I remember reading a piece years ago in, I think, the Guardian; claiming that Brand "liked women" - i.e.understood them; emphasized with them. It's really amazing how many people went along with that, when in fact he really "liked" them only to the point at which he could bend them to his will. He fooled the would-be liberal left; they're busily denying it now - 'oh, we knew summat were up': did you? Really? Sorry - I don't believe you in any way at all. You mostly worshipped at his shrine, adopted him, found him sexually attractive, amusing, young, fresh.
Pull the other one - Russell graced the pages of the Daily Mirror and the Guardian, in a series of provocative poses (if you like that sort of thing) displaying his chest hair and the swelling in what he called his "daft jeans"; and you knew just what you were doing, from the gutter press to the more elevated ranks of liberal opinion. You thought him exciting, and new - on the Big Fat Quiz of the Year, in his own show. You encouraged him to say what you weren't yet ready to say; he tested the water for you. Now, of course - you'll leave him to sink in his own excrement. But please don't pretend you, in the popular press, in the gossip columns, even in Parliament which invited him to address them, are somehow innocent of the behaviour in which he revelled, because you ENABLED it! I'm way too old to be fooled by the English establishment in one of its moral fits, which are so often just the successful policy of distraction and misdirection. You're as guilty as Brand, because you let him get away with it for around 30 years: we have to understand that or, sooner or later, it'll happen again. A celebrity will be dragged into court; we'll all shiver in pearl-clutching shock; and we'll have known, and encouraged it, for so long as we felt safe in doing so.
