Russell Brand: Less #MeToo, more #WhyNow?

  I met Russell Brand fleetingly around 2007. It wasn’t impactful enough for me to even be sure of the year! But it was definitely while I was doing my MSt in Medieval History at Oxford and happened in my college’s porter’s lodge. Brand had been looking around the university before later appearing at the Oxford Union. As an active Conservative Party member and Christian I was definitely no fan of his sexually explicit comedy and anti Tory ranting. However although I was expecting a leud creep I met a polite, rather gentlemanly individual. His magnetic charisma was clear even in those few minutes, but I definitely didn’t feel uncomfortable. ‘I’d like to marry an Oxford University woman’ with a wink was as forward as he got. I don’t recount this because it sheds any light on the recent accusations against him or to somehow cast doubt on his predatory nature. It simply made me reflect that it’s hard to truly know what public figures are like when not in public and it triggered memories of some rather unpleasant contact I had other famous and/or powerful men in those pre #MeToo noughties. I’ve had unwanted hands on various parts of my body, suggestions of slipping me a hotel room key and graphic innuendo all from men who’s public image was and remains one of total decency. One of the offending hands belongs to a man who is now in the House of Lords. Furthermore many of my fellow female Oxford students, especially in the context of the Oxford Union and its constant stream of famous speakers, told me tales of pretty shocking harassment and even assault by men who will likely never have their spotless public persona tarnished.

  ‘What happens at Oxford stays at Oxford’ was the attitude de rigueur in my very happy years there. That mainly related to student behaviour but, being before the #MeToo movement, it also included university staff and famous guests. There was definitely toleration of behaviour that would be regarded as unacceptable and even criminal today. I remember being offered cocaine by the son of a very high profile, influential figure and marvelling at how the Oxford wall of silence would always hide his student side hustle in drug dealing. Of course these days universities, including Oxford, are champions of ‘safe spaces’ and actively encourage reporting on anyone and everyone. One could argue they are somewhat cultivating a culture of victimhood, hyper sensitivity and indeed fear of being accused of something that will ruin your life. That is definitely not to say that everything was better before, for want of a better term, the ‘woke takeover’ of education. In my University days women were often expected to put up with embarrassing to awful behaviour from men. Simultaneously it encouraged some men to think their behaviour was acceptable and would have no consequences. Indeed there have been no consequences for many, a lot of whom are now no doubt filling their social media with condemnation of Russell Brand. But the problem with #MeToo was always going to be the proverbial pendulum swinging too far the other way, so that we now exist in a society where (especially male) innocence must be proved not guilt. Moreover we now have only ‘victims’ rather than people making accusations. ‘Alleged’ has been removed from the accepted vocabulary, except when said in haste to tick a legal box.

   Furthermore we are now expected to believe that the very people who adored and encouraged Russell Brand’s sexist, crude, predatory persona are now appalled by everything he did on and off screen. It’s almost laughable that LBC radio’s James O’Brien has been exposed as having tweeted disparagingly about women accusing Brand of sexual impropriety in 2015, whilst these days he instantly believes all alleged victims and is now ranting against anyone merely defending Brand’s presumption of innocence. It is often said that ‘timing is everything’ and the timing of the media storm around Brand speaks volumes. Now that the man has turned his life around, conquered multiple serious addictions, refocused on charity work, promoting wellbeing and creating both a wildly successful podcast and a stable family life with his wife (who is pregnant with his third child), now is the time he must be ruined. We are being asked to believe that, by the likes of former BBC Newsnight host Emily Maitliss, that the last decade of his life has been a mere smokescreen for the demon beneath. That seems like one those conspiracy theories that Maitliss and her ilk love to condemn! It’s also depressing to me as a Christian to see such widespread cynicism about the potential for someone to truly reform. Indeed they appear to think he’s still such a demon that his excellent addiction charity must be investigated and even a food bank he supported no longer wants his money! It almost feels they are desperate the cleanse themselves of their past sins from before #MeToo by thoroughly destroying Brand. It does seem bizarre and not #BeKind that they seem willing to destroy vulnerable people helped by his charities in the process. Moreover while the liberal elites have made Brand the focus of their wrath now, the fact they loved him while he had ‘the right views’ shows that they are no doubt continuing to tolerate all sorts of behaviour by those they see as being on their own side.

    Why Brand and why now? That is the question everyone should be asking. Hopefully a proper police investigation will uncover the truth behind the disturbing criminal allegations! But it is not unreasonable to assume that the media outlets condemning him now are at least partly motivated by his journey from their ‘anti Tory’ darling to a thorn in their flesh. One doesn’t have to believe in some kind of ‘matrix’ conspiracy to wonder why it took over 10 years for this media storm to break and whether #MeToo and victim culture generally is often being selectively weaponised. After all, while we have all consuming outrage over one comedian’s behaviour more than a decade ago, (although terrible for any true victims), Epstein’s bulging black book of paedophile clients seems unworthy of investigative journalism . . .