 |
| Russell Brand and David Walliams (Image: The Law Society Gazette) |
If you were to judge the recent news in Britain in black and white, you may recollect the 2000s very differently to how we actually experienced it at the time. The conviction and sentencing of Russell Brand for rape and sexual assault, followed swiftly by the shocking documentary that covered multiple allegations of sexual misconduct and grooming by David Walliams, have felt as though an earthquake had pierced through the British entertainment scene. Some commentators are already comparing these cases to the #MeToo movement that dumbfounded the American film industry almost ten years ago, with potentially more names to come out.
In the Noughties, Brand and Walliams were big comedy personalities in their own rights. Brand was always seen as edgy and he never shied away from sexualised content in his work, which took him, on the most part, post-watershed on places like Channel 4. Later, he had a stint on BBC Radio 2 as a late night presenter, which ended abruptly in 2008 after performing a lurid prank call to Andrew Sachs, star of the 1970s BBC sitcom Fawlty Towers, describing how he would sleep with Sach's granddaughter.
Undeterred by that setback, he fell into a rollercoaster of a romance with US singer Katy Perry - dated, engaged, married and divorced in just over years - and a short career in Hollywood. When his relationship with Perry went to pot, he turned to anti-establishment activism, which horrified me in 2013. He tried flirting with the idea of an Ed Miliband government in 2015, but when that didn't work, he rather quickly went 180-degrees politically, following any conspiracy theory going, so long as it fit the narrative that made him the most dirty money.
To cut the long story short, allegations of any wrongdoing was going to catch up on him, whether it was his personal life or his political views. The fact that he was convicted, and given a ten-and-a-half-year sentence, didn't come as a surprise. He could face further trouble as further allegations are being looked into.
Walliams, on the other hand, led a completely different career path. His comedy, too, was seen as edgy, but mainstream enough for it to be loved by millions at the time. Little Britain, with his comedy partner Matt Lucas, attracted huge audiences, and their characters defined that era. I often say 'computer says no' whenever any tech goes against me. Some of the sketches were very funny.
After he stepped away from his partnership with Lucas in 2011, he was able to make a name for himself - becoming a judge on Britain's Got Talent for ten seasons, becoming one of the 21st Century's most successful children's authors and doing countless charity gigs for Comic Relief and the like - his swim across the English Channel in 2006 will long live in the memory.
So, the allegations of his serious misconduct towards girls and young women between the ages of 15 to early 20s during the height of his career were seen as very surprising. Having watched the documentary, led by The Guardian newspaper and broadcaster ITV, which also airs Britain's Got Talent, you'd be hard-hearted not to sympathise with the women who came forward, regardless of whether they were anonymous or otherwise. What struck me more was that he was able to respond to every single claim made against him, and in detail. He could have easily denied everything, or not bother to comment. But he admitted some things, and had different recollections of the more serious claims. Ultimately, he denies any criminal activity.
As I write this, the Metropolitan Police is now investigating allegations separate to what the documentary reported, so it will only be a matter of time until we know whether this is just a character assassination, or whether he is, in the eyes of the justice system, a 'sexual predator,' something he robustly refutes. The fact that he's lost his book contract and has no jobs lined up, even if he is deemed innocent of everything, he has an incredibly long road to reputational recovery.
As these two men become big news, some commentators have been reflecting on that era and question whether we should cover it with the glory we once did. Yes, we are often reminded of the 'lad' and 'ladette' cultures, where anything went - reality TV exposed, in flippant terms, that we were heavy drinkers, craving for intercourse and being lousy, messy slobs. But these didn't dominate the decade's agenda. In the Noughties, we knew what was right and wrong. Back then, no meant no. Back then, sleeping with anyone under 16 was a big no-no. Back then, we had such great awareness of going over the limit - that Think! advertising campaign was so effective. We'd moved on from the 1970s and earlier, when these measures weren't actively in place.
Back then, we also welcomed great creativity. When people today accuse Little Britain of being racist or Friends of transphobia, any reactions at the time were completely relaxed, and trust me, we were aware of - and called out - blatant racism and transphobia. We were acutely aware that Ting Tong (a depicted character on Little Britain) did not reflect the Thai nationality or culture. It was satire. In fact, the most offensive sketch from the show was the 'bitty' one, I never liked it then, and still today, the thought of those scenes make me shudder. That being said, Ofcom never received complaints about the comedy show, and honestly, people loved complaining to Ofcom then - cue Big Brother.
Also, back then, we took safeguarding extremely seriously. Yes, it's much better today, but the awareness of harassment was widely acknowledged and acted on. We can't say that safeguarding was non-existent because we didn't expose the likes of Brand and Walliams sooner. I completely agree with those who call on the entertainment industry to review measures, and embody a culture that empowers anyone who felt uncomfortable to have a safe space and come forward with their feelings and experiences. However, odd individuals here and there do not reflect a huge sector. Sadly, rotten apples slip through the net - they just need to be seen to sooner, before crimes are committed.
And, please, let the police do their job. I applaud investigative journalism most of the time, but if there are crimes committed, journalists should support the justice system rather than worrying about increasing viewership. Wrong priorities may backfire on them, and those who faced these sexual attacks, especially when officers can't investigate as no complaints are officially made to them. So, in the case of Walliams, if he's done wrong, let's follow procedures. If people are sceptical that their voices aren't being heard, we need to promote the fact that the rate of convicting someone of rape is improving. Let's, together, support that upward trend.
Comments
Post a Comment