Russell Brand allegations

[ThatRobGuy]

Russell Brand allegations: What is the star accused of?

The comedian and actor denies serious allegations about his behaviour over a period of seven years.

www.bbc.com

The actor and comedian is also said to have behaved inappropriately at work during the height of his fame, including by undressing, making sexual remarks and acting aggressively.
Brand denies the allegations, revealed in a joint investigation by the Sunday Times, the Times and Channel 4's Dispatches, and says his relationships have been "always consensual".

 

[Pommer]

DKDC

 

[essentialsaltes]

"but the timing makes the accusations questionable"

What makes you say/suggest that?

 

[Pommer]

"but the timing makes the accusations questionable"

What makes you say/suggest that?

This is known as “the hook”, have a fun thread!

 

[ThatRobGuy]

"but the timing makes the accusations questionable"

What makes you say/suggest that?

This is another one of those cases where rumors of this sort of thing first came up 4 years ago, and the alleged events themselves were over a decade ago, and nobody did anything about it or acted on it.

Russell Brand’s Agent Was Told Three Years Ago Of Allegations He Assaulted A Teenager, But Only Fired Him This Week After Being “Horribly Misled”

Russell Brand has been dropped by his agent Tavistock Wood amid accusations he raped and sexually abused four women at the height of his fame. Tavistock Wood, backed by United Talent Agency-owned C…

deadline.com

In the height of the "Me Too" movement, there were several cases where people came out with allegations of things that had allegedly happened way into the past, but apparently sat on those allegations (and or authorities/reporters opted not to do anything with it) until it served some sort of ulterior purpose.

So does this Russell Brand situation resemble a legitimate predator situation? (like a Cosby or Harvey Weinstein scenario)

Does it fall into more of a Aziz Ansari situation? (Where the other parties consented at the time, but then regretted their decision after the fact, and were encouraged by media outlets to "come forward" because they were looking to get a "scoop" on a high profile person)

Or does it fall into the other realm of "this person is saying some things we don't like now, so let's go snooping around in the past try to shape public opinion using allegations that we've known about for a decade"? (Like when people weren't thrilled about some things Joe Rogan was saying, so then shined a spotlight on some times he'd used the n-word in a comedy routine 8 years prior)

 

[durangodawood]

.....
Or does it fall into the other realm of "this person is saying some things we don't like now, so let's go snooping around in the past try to shape public opinion using allegations that we've known about for a decade"? (Like when people weren't thrilled about some things Joe Rogan was saying, so then shined a spotlight on some times he'd used the n-word in a comedy routine 8 years prior)

Was it demonstrated somehow that Joe Rogan did that? And what was the context, if he did?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Was it demonstrated somehow that Joe Rogan did that? And what was the context, if he did?

Anyone familiar with his comedy knew that he did that...but why wait until 2021 to shine a spotlight on it?

Ironically, he's not the only white comedian who's ever done that. David Cross has also used it in the context of "ironic/satirical" jokes, but nobody's really come after him for it.

Sometimes these things are more "targeted" (as in they want to specifically bash that person because they have a particular problem with them).

Other times, it's more just journalists knowing which way the wind is blowing, and wanting to get more clicks (like when they went after Jimmy Fallon for his SNL Chris Rock impression that'd happened a decade prior or when Kimmel did his Karl Malone impression...they didn't have any animus toward those comedians in particular, they just happened to be the ones who did the sketches that checked off the certain boxes they were looking to check)

 

[durangodawood]

Free Lizzo!

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Free Lizzo!

I must have missed something or must not be up on all the latest "Lizzo Happenings"...

Was Lizzo the subject of allegations recently or something?

 

[durangodawood]

Anyone familiar with his comedy knew that he did that...but why wait until 2021 to shine a spotlight on it?
.....

Probably because you made enemies one way or another. Or cultural standards changed and people want to apply them retroactively, which doesn't make sense.

 

[durangodawood]

I must have missed something or must not be up on all the latest "Lizzo Happenings"...

Was Lizzo the subject of allegations recently or something?

Yep. Shes in the "bad" column now.

(I still put her on the headphones when I want to practice to some club music on the drums.)

 

[RocksInMyHead]

So does this Russell Brand situation resemble a legitimate predator situation? (like a Cosby or Harvey Weinstein scenario)

Does it fall into more of a Aziz Ansari situation? (Where the other parties consented at the time, but then regretted their decision after the fact, and were encouraged by media outlets to "come forward" because they were looking to get a "scoop" on a high profile person)

It appears to fall somewhere in between - Cosby and Weinstein were serial predators, which doesn't appear to line up with the allegations against Brand, while the accusation against Ansari was pretty quickly called into question.

Or does it fall into the other realm of "this person is saying some things we don't like now, so let's go snooping around in the past try to shape public opinion using allegations that we've known about for a decade"? (Like when people weren't thrilled about some things Joe Rogan was saying, so then shined a spotlight on some times he'd used the n-word in a comedy routine 8 years prior)

Public opinion turning against someone can indeed lead to more digging into their past for dirt. And sometimes it just takes the right information getting to the right person.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Yep. Shes in the "bad" column now.

(I still put her on the headphones when I want to practice to some club music on the drums.)

"[Lizzo] is being sued by a group of her former backup dancers, who claim she sexually and verbally harassed them, and even made negative comments about their weight."

I hate to point out the obvious, but where does Lizzo get off criticizing other people about their weight. Her company name is "Big Grrrl Big Touring Inc." ...and she pretty much flaunts the fact that she's horribly overweight and conflates it with a symbol of "empowerment", but then criticizes them for being too big and stress eating.

To use the expression "it's like having a picnic at the beach and being upset that the seagulls showed up"

I'm betting she now wishes she could go back in time to when the most controversial thing about her was the silly spat over Madison's flute.


...but I digress

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Probably because you made enemies one way or another. Or cultural standards changed and people want to apply them retroactively, which doesn't make sense.

Even with the changing cultural standards, there are some people who still seem to get a little bit of a "pass" on some of that stuff.

Tarantino comes to mind. Same with Mel Brooks. (I'm a huge fan of both), but they don't seem to catch much "flak" for "past insensitivities"

Or perhaps a more accurate assessment would be, certain jokes/comedic material (that would otherwise be offensive if it were a real life situation) have context. And when people are looking to sharpen their axes, they seem to intentionally miss/ignore the context of certain material.

 

[durangodawood]

"[Lizzo] is being sued by a group of her former backup dancers, who claim she sexually and verbally harassed them, and even made negative comments about their weight."

I hate to point out the obvious, but where does Lizzo get off criticizing other people about their weight. Her company name is "Big Grrrl Big Touring Inc." ...and she pretty much flaunts the fact that she's horribly overweight and conflates it with a symbol of "empowerment", but then criticizes them for being too big and stress eating.

To use the expression "it's like having a picnic at the beach and being upset that the seagulls showed up"

I'm betting she now wishes she could go back in time to when the most controversial thing about her was the silly spat over Madison's flute.


...but I digress

Yes you're not the first to notice the irony. Oh well.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Yes you're not the first to notice the irony. Oh well.

When I first read that she sexually harassed backup dancers, my mind immediately went to "Oh, she must have had some ripped good looking dudes as backup dancers and she was going for a quid pro quo thing"...but as the story reads, she was coercing her female backup dancers to come with her to the red light district in Amsterdam and goading them into touching some of the nude male performers.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Public opinion turning against someone can indeed lead to more digging into their past for dirt. And sometimes it just takes the right information getting to the right person.

I can see that being good and bad.

On one hand, if it takes non-conventional situations that lead to justice...that's a good thing.

If it's a case where it's "well, it really didn't bother me all that much at the time, and I never saw it as a big deal...but this reporter/media outlet is offering me money for my harrowing account 10 years later", I don't think that's a particularly beneficial incentive structure.

While my anecdote certainly isn't a perfect comparison (there's other dynamics at play like the male/female dynamic)...without getting too edgy on the forums, let's just say one of the "encounters of my youth" involved a situation where I was 16, and the girl/woman involved was 24. I acknowledged the male/female dynamic because I was bigger and stronger than her and could've removed myself of the situation anytime I wanted, and I recognized that if the gender roles were reversed, a 16 year old girl wouldn't have that luxury in dealing with a 24 year old man)


At the time I really enjoyed myself...spent the next 6 months bragging about to anyone who would listen, and never thought of it as anything "earth shattering". If she ended up being a famous person (she's not, I still actually bump into her on occasion lol) and all of the sudden I pretended that I was violated/traumatized (when that clearly wasn't the case) because there was something to be "gained", that would be a pretty crummy move on my part.

In summary, I don't think it's a good thing if there's an incentive (monetary, notoriety, or otherwise) for people to retroactively "revoke consent".

 

[durangodawood]

I can see that being good and bad.

On one hand, if it takes non-conventional situations that lead to justice...that's a good thing.

If it's a case where it's "well, it really didn't bother me all that much at the time, and I never saw it as a big deal...but this reporter/media outlet is offering me money for my harrowing account 10 years later", I don't think that's a particularly beneficial incentive structure.

While my anecdote certainly isn't a perfect comparison (there's other dynamics at play like the male/female dynamic)...without getting too edgy on the forums, let's just say one of the "encounters of my youth" involved a situation where I was 16, and the girl/woman involved was 24. I acknowledged the male/female dynamic because I was bigger and stronger than her and could've removed myself of the situation anytime I wanted, and I recognized that if the gender roles were reversed, a 16 year old girl wouldn't have that luxury in dealing with a 24 year old man)


At the time I really enjoyed myself...spent the next 6 months bragging about to anyone who would listen, and never thought of it as anything "earth shattering". If she ended up being a famous person (she's not, I still actually bump into her on occasion lol) and all of the sudden I pretended that I was violated/traumatized (when that clearly wasn't the case) because there was something to be "gained", that would be a pretty crummy move on my part.

In summary, I don't think it's a good thing if there's an incentive (monetary, notoriety, or otherwise) for people to retroactively "revoke consent".

For sure. I think there's plenty of famous and/or powerful people who have been genuine jerks or even worse. And plenty more who simply have a target on their backs just for being rich and famous.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

At the time I really enjoyed myself...spent the next 6 months bragging about to anyone who would listen, and never thought of it as anything "earth shattering". If she ended up being a famous person (she's not, I still actually bump into her on occasion lol) and all of the sudden I pretended that I was violated/traumatized (when that clearly wasn't the case) because there was something to be "gained", that would be a pretty crummy move on my part.

I mean, good for you, I guess? But it's hardly a comparable situation, both in dynamic (you acknowledged the male/female aspect, but he was also in his 30s - an 18 year difference is much more significant than an 8 year difference - and already famous at the time) and for the simple fact that you are not her. Discounting her experience just because you had a good relationship with some similar aspects is pretty dismissive.

And the fact that several other women (and colleagues) have come forward about his abusive behavior - sexually, physically, verbally, and emotionally - lends credence to the idea that he's not a nice person.

 

[RileyG]

I think with the #metoo movement, more and more allegations are coming out. I simply don't know if he's innocent or not.