“Nothing exemplifies the deterioration of our society more than the transformation of the BBC from a highly respected British institution into its current position as national cheerleader for political correctness spiced with large helpings of chav degeneracy. An example of the latter is the self indulgent behaviour of two of its ludicrously overpaid presenters who left an obscene message on the voicemail of the Fawlty Towers actor Andrew Sachs. A clearly half witted senior manager approved this material as suitable for broadcasting. Fortunately, the manager and one of the presenters have resigned, and the other presenter suspended for three months, without pay. Over 30,000 members of the public complained to the BBC about this tasteless prank.
The reason that this material could be broadcast is because the BBC now has an absolute contempt for what until recently the overwhelming majority of viewers considered were civilised values and good taste. The BBC has been in the vanguard of undermining such values and replacing them with a diet of crude and uncouth trash under the delusional belief that it is progressive and cutting edge. In reality it is invariably puerile and embarrassing, and needless to say completely unfunny, unlike the many excellent sitcoms such as Fawlty Towers, which the BBC once produced with dependable regularity. One interesting fact which emerged from this episode was that most people over 30 found this broadcast objectionable, whereas those under 30 were puzzled what all the fuss was about. However, younger people eventually mature, and then see this kind of rubbish for what it really is".
Brand was the presenter who resigned after the above prank. He has been in the headlines for the past few days, accused of a number of sex offences, which the ‘comedian’ denies. The BBC is now trying to distant itself from this degenerate loudmouth, claiming that times have changed and that such puerile behaviour would no longer be tolerated. Since 2008 this blog has learnt quite a bit more about Brand than was known at the time. For example, that he was employed by Channel 4 as a presenter of the Big Brother programme and was a high profile presenter for BBC Radio 2.
Some of Brand’s ‘comedy’ routine was shown in the recent Channel 4 Dispatches programme. It confirms that Brand is both uncouth in manner and licentious in behaviour. He was employed by both the BBC and Channel 4 to attract a youth audience with his supposedly ‘edgy’ approach. To some extent this strategy appears to have been successful as the vast majority of his TV studio audience seem to be under thirty. What is disturbing is that about half the audience were female, and they found his crude and debased attempts at humour to be just as hilarious as the men did. So we have a degenerate ‘comedian’ performing before an equally degenerate audience, hypocritically aided and abetted by two broadcasting companies that can be relied upon to proclaim their own fake moral superiority at every opportunity.
It is of course not a crime to be degenerate, but sexual behaviour can be. Brand maintains that he has never committed any illegal acts during his promiscuous sexual escapades, which he maintains were always consensual. The Channel 4 Dispatches programme followed the same playbook as the earlier ITV Exposure programme about Jimmy Savile which is summarised here http://bit.ly/2dybGYs All the accusers are anonymous, their faces are never shown and their comments are voiced over. However, the Brand programme goes into far more detail and its professionalism exposes more clearly the amateurish fabrications that were the basis of the Savile programme.
Brand faced five accusers. Two of the most serious accusations occurred during his time in the USA. The first, Nadia, claimed that Brand locked the bedroom door, forcing himself upon her and then raping her as she was unable to escape. To her credit she went straight away to a rape treatment centre, who notified the police, but in the event Nadia decided not to make a complaint.
A second complainant, Phoebe, had a similar experience of being trapped in a bedroom with Brand forcing himself upon her. She started screaming and managed to make her escape. Her screams were heard by work colleagues outside who had just arrived for a meeting. So in both cases there was independent contemporaneous corroboration which adds to credibility of both accusers. However, it should be noted that both women were in a sexual relationship with Brand when these alleged attacks took place.
The three remaining accusations all took place in the UK. The first, Alice was a 16 year old schoolgirl who claimed to have had a three month relationship with Brand. She provides some examples of Brand’s insensitive behaviour and claims that she was ‘groomed’ by him and accuses him of ‘controlling’ behaviour. However, in a subsequent BBC radio interview she admitted that she repeatedly found ways of evading her mother’s prohibition on contacting and meeting Brand.
Another accuser, Rachel, a runner for a TV programme, was pursued by Brand and claimed to have been shocked by some of his behaviour. Nevertheless, she soon entered into a sexual relationship with him. Another crew member claimed that Brand asked her to approach attractive young females in the audience for their telephone numbers. Afterwards some claimed that they had been in tears after ‘being treated poorly’, by Brand.
These UK claims all seem to come within the reliable catch all term of ‘inappropriate’ behaviour, namely that which falls short of being criminal. It should be noted that because of Brand’s self proclaimed highly promiscuous behaviour, there must have been hundreds of women who willingly accepted Brand’s arrogant advances without being traumatised by the experience.
Like virtually all national comedians in recent decades Brand incorporated the mandatory full range of left wing nostrums in his act. This would have provided him with protection and cover to carry out his predatory and debased lifestyle, since the politically correct establishment does not openly condemn its own kind. However, in recent years he has adopted some less acceptable viewpoints, for example, supporting an ‘anti-vaxxer’ position associated with the ‘far right’, that was considered a betrayal by his former woke sponsors. Some claim that this change of outlook prompted the moves to expose him, with the result that he was no longer able to rely on their protection.
On the available evidence it appears unlikely that Brand will be charged with any offence unless new allegations emerge. It is disturbing that a person of such debased behaviour and manner has attracted such a vast number of followers on social media. On the other hand it is distasteful to see a phoney self righteous collection of mainstream media outlets combining together as a pack to destroy a celebrity on nothing more than a relatively small number of anonymous accusations.
