Russell Brand is now in Parliament's sights
The House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee is diving into the row over allegations against the comedian-turned-conspiracy theorist
It sounds formulaic but it’s important to say at the beginning, clearly and unambiguously, that Russell Brand has not been charged with, let alone convicted of, any criminal behaviour. On Saturday, Channel 4’s Dispatches programme aired serious allegations of sexual misconduct against the entertainer, which were also set out in The Sunday Times the following day, the culmination of a four-year investigation between the two organisations. Those who want to read the accusations in full can do so, and there is no need to rehearse them here. But it is right to stress not only his status as innocent before the law but also his vehement denials of the accusations. On Friday last week, Brand pre-empted the case against him by posting a video in which he denied any wrongdoing and hinting that he was the victim of a conspiracy by the “mainstream media” and other actors.
I will also say, for avoidance of doubt, and irrespective of the recent allegations, that I cannot stand Russell Brand. I’ve never found him funny or insightful, his superficially wordy and eccentric persona irritates and annoys me profoundly, he’s always struck me as cold and creepy, and to judge him on public behaviour, ignoring anything which appeared in the media this weekend, one can still take the view that he is an unpleasant, predatory, misogynistic, overbearing boor, who thrives on discomfiting others, especially women, and enjoys causing outrage. None of that, I say again, makes him guilty of any criminal act.
The accusations have been seismic for the media world, and for public life more generally. YouTube has taken action to prevent Brand from earning revenue from his content on their platform, the BBC has announced a review of complaints against Brand during his time appearing on their programming, he has been dropped as the headline act by next February’s Wanderlust Festival, a wellness and yoga event in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne, and Alex Mahon, the CEO of Channel 4, has called the accusations against Brand “disgusting and saddening”, calling for the industry to confront bad behaviour.
The Metropolitan Police is now involved, as a complaint has been made against Brand of alleged sexual assault in 2003. While he has been widely condemned, there is also a significant body of opinion which has come to his defence, repeating and amplifying his allegations of an “establishment” conspiracy against him on the grounds that the content he has released in recent years on YouTube and Rumble has “exposed” a number of lies and deceptions by governments, big business and the media on issues like Covid-19 and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. (For what it’s worth, I find these declarations of support, from people like Beverley Turner, Allison Pearson, Andrew Tate, Roger Stone, Tucker Carlson and Alex Jones, revolting and laughably unhinged; in this case, I’m happy for a man to be judged by the company he keeps.)
Now, with a heavy inevitability, the House of Commons has waded into the furore. The chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Dame Caroline Dinenage (who was only elected to the position in May after Conservative MP Julian Knight resigned facing an accusation of sexual assault), has written to several broadcasters and social media platforms to request information about Brand and in particular whether and how he derives revenue from their platforms. She has sent letters to TikTok, Channel 4, the BBC, GB News, Rumble, X Corp (formerly Twitter) and Meta, owners of Facebook.
You may be wondering why a select committee of Parliament is involving itself in accusations of sexual misconduct against an individual entertainer. The Standing Orders of the House of Commons set out the remit and duties of departmental select committees like Culture, Media and Sport. Standing Order S.O. No. 152 states that they are “to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the principal government departments… and associated public bodies”. Effectively the “policy” stipulation gives committees the ability to examine whatever they want; in the case of Culture, Media and Sport, the department it scrutinises, DCMS, is responsible for media and broadcasting, and the BBC and Channel 4 are public corporations which it supervises. Tangential? Yes, but it has always been thus.
For reasons which are understandable if not necessarily laudable, committees, because they comprise politicians, will always seek to comment on and investigate issues of current public interest. The worst example of this was the Home Affairs Committee under the chairmanship of disgraced former Labour MP Keith Vaz (2007-16), notorious for ambulance-chasing and seeking out high-profile witnesses (one of whom, ironically enough, was Russell Brand, who gave evidence to the committee on the subject of drugs in April 2012; it was not an edifying experience). So it is no surprise that Dame Caroline has hastened to stake out her committee’s claim to territory in the media frenzy.
One could ask if the committee will make a useful contribution to the wider debate about the behaviour and supervision of performers in the media and the responsibilities of broadcasters and platforms for the content which they host. Let us be charitable and say “perhaps”; although the Commons has adjourned for the conference recess and will not sit again until 16 October, the committee is perfectly able to meet during that period, and it may be that questioning key media figures will air some of the issues which need to be reviewed. On the matter of Brand himself, the committee will need to tread carefully now that a complaint has been made to the police. Although members and witnesses may say anything they like in formal session and are protected by parliamentary privilege, the House operates the sub judice rule as a self-denying ordinance so that it doesn’t run the risk of interfering with live legal proceedings.
Is Dame Caroline’s intervention wise? Here I think I must be more equivocal. At least one recipient of her letters, Chris Pavlovski, CEO of Rumble, has pushed back hard against the committee’s request for information. In his response, he described Dame Caroline’s letter as “extremely disturbing”, arguing that the allegations against Brand have “nothing to do with content on Rumble’s platform”. He went on to say that it was “deeply inappropriate and dangerous that the UK Parliament would attempt to control who is allowed to speak on our platform or to earn a living from doing so”, noting that “we don’t agree with the behavior of many Rumble creators, but we refuse to penalize them for actions that have nothing to do with our platform”. Pavlovksi therefore “emphatically reject[ed] the UK Parliament’s demands” for information about revenue available to Brand.
This potential conflict is a sign of the stance that some people will inevitably take. The committee may find itself embroiled in a debate over freedom of speech and the extent to which social media platforms are responsible for the content they host, a worthwhile and interesting debate but one which could expand almost without limit and for which a select committee, essentially a scrutiny body rather than a forum for policy development, is not particularly well suited. But Dame Caroline will have known, or should have been advised, that this was a significant possibility.
My remaining committee clerk’s instincts wince. I suspect the committee’s involvement will generate more heat than light, though it will boost the committee’s profile and that of its chair. There will be procedural and administrative challenges, but that is what clerks are paid for. Insofar as it reminds or informs the public of the existence of select committees, it may do some little good. But I think we will have to wait a few weeks to see if the decision to intervene at this stage in the ongoing brouhaha was wise or in the best interests of Parliament. I will keep my fingers crossed.
It is effectively a rerun of the Huw Edwards session a little while ago, no? And in a long line of committee interventions re broadcaster/producer supervision/indulgence of the behaviour of 'the talent', going back to J Saville and beyond.
The locus for the Committee is often claimed to be the use of 'public funds' by 'the national broadcaster' - though since the licence fee is not paid into nor dispensed from the public purse this argument technically does not wash...