‘I confronted Russell Brand about his behaviour years ago – he had no regrets’ - The Independent

Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Membership today.

I was not a 16-year-old schoolgirl when I went to interview Russell Brand nine years ago. I was a professional woman in my thirties, a journalist from a national newspaper doing my job. When I arrived, I shook his hand. When I left – after he’d complimented my “Malteser” eyes – he offered me a cuddle, an exchange that reveals a lot about how Brand sees women. The tip of a misogynist attitude, which I wanted to confront him about. But then, as now, the only victim he recognised was himself.

Today, Russell Brand is facing years behind bars after he was found guilty of one count of rape and three sexual assaults following a dramatic four-week trial. And a larger cultural shift is taking place of women who want a wider discussion about consent and who – like me – think the age-old defence that “if nothing illegal happened then there is no problem” no longer cuts it.

Brand has always characterised the accusations as a coordinated attack by mainstream media, arguing his relationships were always consensual and his promiscuous past was something he’d always been open about. It was claim that took on new meaning when viewed in the context of an old stand-up routine where he jokes about liking women to give him oral sex that left them choking and their mascara running. A description, echoed by a woman called “Alice”, who told the Dispatches investigation team how Brand forced his penis into her 16-year-old mouth: “I couldn’t breathe, he was just choking me. I was crying and he said, ‘Oh I only wanted to see your mascara run anyway,’” she said.

When I interviewed Brand in 2017, he had just married Laura Gallacher and had become a father for the first time and was at the beginning of restyling himself – from debauched comedian to newly enlightened self-help guru. Gone was his trademark eyeliner and in its place a man bun. He was promoting a tome called Recovery: Freedom From Our Addictions – a book inspired by the 12 principles of Alcoholics Anonymous.

Brand’s sexual exploits were well known by then. He’d boasted about how often he’d used prostitutes from the age of 16 and described getting through 80 partners a month, telling one interviewer in 2010: “I was having sex with different women three, four, five times a day. It was bacchanalian. In Ireland, nine in one evening… The fame and kind of will that I had meant that, instead of taking someone for a date and then going to the pictures and then calling them, I was able to go, ‘Let’s do sex right now!’”

In his second memoir, Booky Wook 2 – published in 2010, after The Sun had named him “Shagger of the Year” three years in a row – he described an orgy at his house as “four in the bed, two in the kitchen, three in the hot tub and still the doorbell rings”. In Recovery, the book I had been sent to talk to him about, he had written: “Every single pleasure-giving thing that’s come my way has been grabbed and guzzled and fondled and f***ed.”

It struck me there appeared to be some serious smoke and mirrors going on. How did his new “woke” reinvention sit alongside his open history of using and discarding women, and deploying crass language about them? Were we supposed to just accept him as a newly changed man when he barely registered that the numbers of sexual conquests he casually boasted about were actual human beings?

Given that the premise of his new book was how he had used the 12-step programme for sex addiction, I asked him if he had completed steps eight and nine, which required compiling a list of everyone he had harmed and making amends to them? How many people were on his list? I asked. “Quite a lot,” he said. “Hundreds?” “Not hundreds,” he replied, apparently surprised I would think that. He then garbled an excuse about how “there is a degree of self-preservation in undergoing this process because of my obligations as a celebrity”.

He prickled at my suggestion that given the grim way he spoke about his encounters with women, he might be a misogynist: “I have something in me, but I’m basically quite soft and loving,” he insisted, “I’m not like a person that likes to hurt or humiliate people… But what I am is a bit greedy. You know, so I like flesh, you know. I like carnality. And I like sex… No other primates are monogamous. Right. I was thinking like that. And these women all want to have sex with me – let’s go.”

He insisted then, as he has since, that all his relationships were consensual. No one was “tricked or inveigled or bribed”. Unwilling to explore the vast grey area around sexual encounters, he did at least acknowledge that sex and power are closely entwined.

He prickled at my suggestion that he might be a misogynist: ‘I have something in me, but I’m basically quite soft and loving,’ he insisted, ‘I’m not like a person that likes to hurt or humiliate people… But what I am is a bit greedy.’

“When it comes to relationships between the genders, I think that what's more important is power rather than sex,” he admitted. “And do you see, there’s quite a lot of little strands that have got to come together here – oh, promiscuity is about sex; sex is about power – and I’m saying, well, I don’t know; with my particular sexuality, it felt like it was about connection and yearning, rather than 'Oh, better subjugate another five women today.' It was much more about 'Love me, love me, come close to me, come close to me.' It’s a wanting... it’s sort of the power of knowing you’re not ugly or something. But for me it is very much like… 'Ahh! Connection.' Rather than subjugation. Do you see what I mean?”

Reading the transcript of our interview back today, I wonder how the women who were accusing him today would have felt hearing those words.

When I asked what his greatest regrets were from the time he was an addict, he surprised me by saying. “I don’t have any.” For anything? “Nothing,” he said. He didn’t regret the way he’d used and spoken about the women he’d slept with. Or apparently regret the fact that, as we now know, a woman called Nadia, who featured in the Dispatches documentary, wrote to him after she alleges he raped her without a condom when she went to his LA home telling him how he “completely broke her down”.

For a man who claimed to be reaching for a greater truth and had hours of therapy, he seemed to me to be astonishingly un-self-aware. Perhaps now the reason for those mental gymnastics is clear. He simply didn’t want to go there.

At the crest of Brand’s fame, I was a showbiz reporter. I sometimes encountered him out on the town and witnessed first hand his sexual confidence. At one party where Amy Winehouse was performing, I watched him sweep backstage to flirt with the make-up girls. Typically, it was the juniors who were the objects of his affection, little did I know that he had already dated a 16-year-old virgin, still at school.

It feels very telling to me now, but it is ultimately a story that is as old as time. The entertainment industry has been built on a history of exploitation of women – whether that is the Hollywood casting couch or the teenage groupies picked off by music “heroes” like John Peel, David Bowie and Jimmy Page.

We now openly discuss how problematic they seem, but the lessons around consent and the power imbalance in relationships are still there to be learnt. Phillip Schofield described his encounter with a much younger colleague as “unwise but not illegal” and was roundly called out for it.

In British courts rape convictions are distressingly rare. We know too that while under British law the age of consent is just a number and, in the murky reality of sexual interactions, power imbalances are not insignificant and need to be addressed. In Sweden for example, although the age of consent is 15, it is raised to 18 if the other party is in a position of trust. A “close in age” clause means a distinction is made when the two parties are of similar age. So a 16-year-old sleeping with another 16-year-old is viewed very differently from a 16-year-old having a sexual relationship with a thirtysomething man. Let alone one with international fame.

For all his bombast about having found the truth in his era of supposed enlightenment, the impact Brand’s behaviour had on women still seems one reality he was unwilling to face. For years he was enabled – by commissioners, colleagues and fans. In a way we all share the blame for enabling Brand over the years– by buying his books, watching his TV appearances, and laughing at jokes he made about women and his terrible behaviour that we knew were problematic. He got away with it so long because he could.

At The Independent, our mission is to deliver unbiased, fact-based journalism. Journalism that's free from political allegiances and the influences of shareholders and commercial interests.

But we need your help. Your support enables us to uncover crucial stories that would otherwise have gone untold, hold power to account, and amplify voices often unheard.

Whether $5 or $50, every contribution counts. It fuels our reporting, invests in investigations, and maintains our independence.

It’s a reminder that our trusted, fact-based, free-thinking journalism remains available to everyone thanks to the generosity of our readers. To show your support and help us tell more of the stories that matter, please make a donation today.

Not ready to donate? Choose 'Maybe later' to start reading.