Russelling feathers

I don’t like Russell Brand. I find him crude, creepy and cretinous. Well, he is a fan of Jeremy Corbyn.

I was sickened by his 2008 ‘prank’ with Jonathan Ross, another talentless, narcissistic toerag, when they left a series of obscene answerphone messages for beloved actor Andrew Sachs about his granddaughter. This episode pails into insignificance when compared to accusations, and the number of them, that have been broadcast this week.

Still, trial by media is not acceptable. Assuming guilt, not innocence, is not a British value. Others have been similarly vilified when they were totally innocent: Harvey Proctor, Cliff Richard, Paul Gambaccini, Lord Bramall, Leon Brittan, Ted Heath and others were also accused of heinous crimes, all were named and shamed throughout the media, all were presumed guilty.

I have to admit, given the number of complaints against Brand from many sources, covering a long period of time, and given his own disgusting utterances, the circumstantial evidence against him is significant. But I still object to trial by media and the baying mob, the armchair sleuths, judges, juries and executioners: they’re not in full possession of all the facts and have no right to call for his head without a ‘properly conducted police investigation’ (given Operation Midland, that phrase is an oxymoron) and trial in a court of law.

But that seems to be how it goes these days. Liz Truss is vilified by the economic illiterate for her supposed economic incompetence. I said at the time that history would judge her more kindly (without completely exonerating her) and now, less than 12 months after her mini-budget, more and more informed commentators are wondering if she was at least partially right, and more and more others are tripping up over increasingly ill-informed criticism (socialists), political expediency (everyone) and arse covering (Mark Carney). BoJo was charged with eating cake by people who weren’t there (most people) and who ate curry themselves (Starmer and Rayner, aka Bert and Ernie), and found guilty by Horrible Harman before she’d examined the evidence. As for Donald Trump, I have no idea what he is or isn’t guilty of. And neither does anyone else. But I do know that Biden is a nasty, dangerous idiot – he’s shown that himself – and Kamala Harris is, err, a nasty, dangerous idiot. Pulling strings in the background is Obama, who’s nasty and dangerous.

I’ve been set upon – found guilty by armchair moralists – for ‘supporting’ so-called ‘populist’ leaders. Actually no. I don’t support the likes of Trump, Meloni, AfD, and Orban; I just keep asking what is driving so many voters into their arms. The answer in part is Biden, the EU, the EU and the EU. My message to the judgemental, on economics, politics and tabloid gossip, is: don’t jump to conclusions like lemmings off a cliff; don’t parrot your nebulous echo chamber.

It’s not only Brand who has been branded guilty prematurely, a couple of people who deigned to defend, sympathise with or support him have also been vilified. Let’s dissect this, shall we? Firstly, forgiveness / loving thine enemy is Christian. Secondly, being kind to family, friends or associates, who might have shown you some kindness in the past, is a natural reaction. I should know, I’ve got the proverbial T-shirt.

A number of years ago, I was scrolling through the BBC news headlines and decided to click on a report of a local man heading to court for historic sex offences, just in case I knew him. Woops. I did. Incredulous, I emailed a mutual friend, who was likewise gobsmacked. Between us we decided that the accusations were fabricated. They had to be. It was easy to doubt his accuser because we didn’t know him, whereas we knew the accused to be a gent: polite, chivalrous, generous, witty, hard-working for his community, went out on limbs to support his friends and colleagues. Indeed, he had once fought my corner against his own organisation when I had blocked a proposal and he had agreed with me and objected to their motives and language. He needn’t have done. But he was being kind. So I was now convinced he was innocent of vile wrongdoing. 

I aired my troubled thoughts with a lawyer I was friendly with, and he rewarded my honesty and obvious angst with a how-dare-you lecture. Guess Horrible Harman and Shady Hale aren’t the only ones who prejudge cases with their closed minds.

I was very disappointed when ‘the gent’ was found guilty and incarcerated. I had to accept the verdict. It was more than disappointment. Perhaps ‘betrayal’ is the word I’m looking for. He obviously lied to me, and others, when he claimed he was innocent. I had been hoodwinked (partly my fault I know) into dwelling on how he was faring with hardly a by-your-leave for his accuser, his victim.

Having kept in touch throughout his trial, I wrote to him a couple of times during his tenure. I kept it neutral and ‘light’. He responded immediately in similar tones.

Fast-forward. I had intended to go to his funeral but, on the day, I wasn’t well and had to rely on our mutual friend to pay our respects and report back as to who else was there and how the vicar had managed the eulogy. Very well, as it turned out. Every time I drove past his old house, which had started to look a bit tatty, I noted how the renovations by the new owners were going. Like a proverbial phoenix from the ashes. A fresh start in many respects. Another element of closure and comfort for his victim(s?), I hope.

I also hope that it is due legal process that does, or does not, for Russell Brand. I also hope that those who speak out in his support are not hounded and derided, because no one knows their story or motives.