Alex M

I've seen on a few articles they've requested comment from Brand (not sure if this is true). The BBC had nothing to do with the documentary. This is problematic with both the mainstream and independent media. Both are guilty of doing this. Please look over the last 20/30 of Russell Brands' videos; his fearmonger is as bad as the mainstream media. In the video titles, he uses words like 'LIED', 'EXPOSED' & 'TERRIFYING', very clickbait/fearmonger. Also, I'd like to clarify that I'm not siding with the media here. The whole handling of this situation is a total clusterfuck. The demonetisation (without even being found guilty of anything is very concerning). But I can also understand YouTube's position. They would be no doubt worried about advertisers pulling the plug (much like on Rumble now). YouTube's goal is its own survival. So if that means upsetting Brand and lesser of the population, then so be it. In their eyes, it is better than being cancelled by advertisers.

How is the BBCs treatment excessive? Just from reporting on the story? Or something else?

Yes sad for the kids. His wife would have to be pretty fucking stupid to be surprised at any of this news. Like I’ve said before it would be like marrying an ex mobster and then being shocked if said mobster is arrest for murder from years back. You marry an ex wild drug / alcohol / sex addict that fucked 100’s if not 1000’s of women you are asking for trouble.

Myself being of a similar age (a few years younger) and growing up in the same 90s & 00s in the UK. I've known who Russell Brand was from long before his YouTube days. Right back when he was the presenter on MTV Dancefloor, he'd be presenting from nightclubs around the UK, cracking onto women in the clubs. In his usual 'cheeky' style. That was culturally acceptable back then, but it would be cringy boarding on sex pest to watch now. Throughout that period, he was in and out of the newspapers all the time for things like getting caught shagging a girl in some toilet etc. This was normalised back then (lad culture). There were plenty of instances of celebrities calling him out for his sexual predator vibes (google it you'll find examples). People have made allegations many times, but nothing ever stuck for whatever reason. Now, he's pivoted away from that lifestyle/period. Into YouTube wellness and the more political side (although his activist side also goes back a long way, this anti-mainstream is nothing new; this goes back to after he was fired from Radio 2, maybe even before then). As @Consept mentioned, a newspaper(s) made more substantial claims of sexual misconduct ages back, but because of the liable laws, they mustn't have had enough evidence, so no names were mentioned. But with the latest revelations, they must have seen a decent amount of evidence; otherwise, Brand would be suing them. He's received libel damages from The Sun newspaper before, so why wouldn't he go after them again if it wasn't true? Maybe he will. This might all seem somewhat surprising for the younger generation who know him from YT. I'd say most from my generation are not surprised at all. He's also now got the mask of the mainstream media, who are out to silence him and can use this as a defence mechanism.

It was culturally very different back in the UK in 2003. Celebrity media types could get away with all kinds of shit that wouldn’t wash now.

Or she was still in the bedroom.

Book: Breath: The New Science of a Lost Art – James Nestor

@toasty7718 I thought he was an advocate of keto / intermittent fasting? Not sure how that is anti-science? And how does it make him a grifter?

The irony is comical.

The big media companies cleaned up their act from that period when Brand was fully mainstream. A defining moment (as @Consept mentioned was when he was fired from the BBC2 radio show). Shit that used to fly will no longer happen (like this example https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66882644). He seems to be morphing and chasing the money. On YouTube, he went from someone talking about spirituality/wellness and jumping to right-leaning talking points. This appears to have mainly happened during lockdown, where views of his videos doubled/tripled. So, of course, he pivoted onto those talking points instead (pure survival, haha). He was aligned with his old 'edgy' vibe and with somewhat less integrity. I find it ironic looking at the titles of his videos from that period onwards. They seem to instil a lot of fear-mongering and have a more mainstream media vibe (talking about politics / Covid / Ukraine war). Even though they are very anti-mainstream, a lot of confliction is going on.

Maybe the whole growth thing is mostly bullshit, and he's just jumped onto a popular emerging thing within the western culture and sees it as a chance to make some money. Away from the likes of the BBC / Channel 4 etc.

Thought loops can be an absolute nightmare. Shrooms can get very warped at times. Sounds like your dosage jump from 2g to 3.5g was a step to much. Try ramping up much slower next time round.

I mentioned it before. The period in which this allegedly took place in the U.K. was culturally pretty toxic. So, this could have easily allowed him to get away with this had he done it.

Of course, survival 101

I wonder if Mike Tyson is next in line. Or maybe YouTube's policy only relates to hearsay. Perhaps you should send the powers that be at YouTube a link to your Explicit vs. Implicit Understanding video.

Absolutely. It's a total shit-show. It falling into this very unhealthy cancel culture. I suspect YouTube are just winging it and going with the most popular media narrative or like you said succumbing to user backlash.

Yup. This is what can happen when you put your monetization in the hands of a larger entity. Especially when they have loosey goosey terms of policy ("creator responsibility policy"). I suspect others will follow suit.

There’s been many from Mike Tyson to most recently Danny Masterson.

I guess it's where you put your attention. Sure, in the UK, he's a lot more well-known. But elsewhere It's likely a different story. I know many people outside of the UK who wouldn't have a clue who Russell Brand was. Either way, we could debate this all day long. Aside from is addiction issues, not sure if they mention it in the docu (not watched it) was the environment he grew up in. The mid 90 - early 2000's culture in the UK was pretty toxic. Plus his parent (dad) didn't present the healthiest of examples towards women.

Was this investigation, not years and years in the making? I don't think The Times / Channel 4 decided a month ago that Russell Brand would destroy them with his YouTube rants and felt he needed to be taken down. He's a tiny fish. The vast majority of the population is not interested in his videos.

Of course, if you are in such a position and you behave in a very immature fashion. Getting intoxicated and swinging your dick around, trying to stick it in anything that moves. You are asking for trouble (this also applies to non-celebrities). If you are mature and engage in non-toxic relationships, you should have much less to worry about, which is why most celebrities have no issue with this kind of thing.

Absolutely. That article also said that on one occasion, her mother drove her to Brand's house and pleaded with her not to go in. That alone seems very toxic and enabling her and not what I would put down to good parenting.

In the original Times article (the link is unfortunately behind a paywall now) it did mention that a driver was sent to school to pick the girl up and deliver her to Brand. But like you said from a legal stand point it's fine. Just highly immature and toxic and I'm sure it comes into the grooming territory. Getting involved with Brand during this period would more than likely turn into a total shit show. Even his current wife should hardly be surprised by this. It's like getting involved with a reformed mobster and that acting surprised if stories surface that they'd killed people in the past.

From reading the stories coming out. They were not all drunk and high. One of the supposed victims was 16 years old and picked up from school. Im guessing you don't hear about this at the time because these type of people would be easy to manipulate especially if you are in a position if power like Brand. This is why we hear these stories time and time again. I can't say I'm surprised if it does turn out to be true. Brand seemed to have replaced his drug addiction with a sex addiction, rather than getting to the route of his issues/trauma.