Brand Russell: BBC apologizes to the staff for the treatment of complaints

The BBC apologized to the staff as part of an examination of the conduct of Russell Brand during his stay with the broadcaster.

The internal examination was ordered after a joint investigation by Time,, Sunday and Canal 4 Dispatches revealed in September 2023 that four women had accused him of sexual assault between 2006 and 2013.

The actor and actor, 49, denies the accusations and previously declared that all his sexual relations were “absolutely always consensual”. He told the former Fox News host, Tucker Carlson, in a YouTube interview that the statements were “very, very hurtful”.

Published Thursday, the BBC survey now found that a number of people “felt unable to raise” concerns about the presenter and thought that “the Russell brand would always have its way and therefore they remained silent”.

Brand, 48, worked for the BBC between 2006 and 2008, when he hosted a program on Radio 2 alongside Jonathan Ross until the two presenters were suspended above the Andrew Sachs Voic-Mandail Row . The actor then resigned, while Ross then presented to the presentation of BBC television and radio shows.

BBC director of complaints Peter Johnston said he had investigated eight complaints concerning the brand. Only two were raised while the actor worked at the BBC, with only one of those officially housed.

Johnston said he and his team had approached 72 people and interviewed 39 in their examination, and “spoke directly to all those who have raised concerns” concerning the behavior of the brand.

He said: “I am grateful to those who came forward to talk to me and my team and I apologized in the name of the BBC to those who are most directly affected by what I documented here.

“The culture of the time undoubtedly influenced what was acceptable / tolerated, but I found that a certain number of individuals had concerns about the behavior of Russell Brand that they felt unable to lift then .

“Many interviewed people thought, wrongly or wrongly, that the Russell brand would always make its way and therefore they remained silent (and I note here my conclusion that the only complaint filed in 2007 was not treated effectively when made).

“The suspension processes of any concern were not developed either than today. In the years that followed, the BBC has introduced other mechanisms and routes to raise concerns. »»

In response to the report – which cost more than £ 662,000, including nearly £ 600,000 on legal costs – the BBC said: “The exam has envisaged eight fault complaints concerning the Russell brand, only two of which were Make that he was hired by the BBC, a formally and an informal.

“It is very worrying that some of these people do not feel able to raise concerns concerning the behavior of Russell Brand at the time, and the BBC apologized for them as part of this review.

“It is also clear that there have been shortcomings of compliance on some of Russell Brand radio 2 emissions which have led the broadcast content that would not be broadcast today.”

He added: “There is an underway investigation into the Russell brand. The BBC was in contact with the metropolitan police throughout the exam and saw the report. The BBC recognizes that the Russell brand categorically denies all public allegations made against it. »»

Prosecutors have not yet decided to bring charges.

The only official complaint surveyed in the BBC review was filed by a BBC employee to a manger in 2007 after the brand is urinated in a cup and a bottle twice while recording its Radio 2 program.

The report notes that the BBC seemed to highlight the incident in a press response at the time to The independentIn which a spokesman said that “someone showed him (brand) where the toilets are”. The report indicates: “Unfortunately, this incident has not been taken seriously at the moment.”

As part of the internal journal, the BBC also spoke to a woman who allegedly allegedly allegedly followed her in a bathroom from the Los Angeles office of the BBC and explained his penis, before joking On the air incident a few minutes later.

An informal complaint was filed in 2008, followed by an official complaint in 2019.

The review revealed that the woman – mentioned by the pseudonym “Olivia” – had decided not to even more and more in 2008 because she thought she would not be believed.

Johnston wrote: “However, he was told that the incident was a public notoriety in the BBC office at the time and in the following years. I heard that he was often “joking”, which is unacceptable for something so serious. »»

The official complaint was filed in 2019 after a member of BBC News personnel working at the ACA the alleged incident of colleagues and asked Olivia if she wanted to take over the question, in which case the managers were informed.

But the exam by Mr. Johnston revealed that the compliance process before the pre -recorded 2008 radio episode – and the BBC treatment of the 2019 complaint – were inadequate.

The report noted that the few people who spoke to whom were the most closely involved in Brand radio emissions described it “as promiscuity or out of control, but declared that they had testified nothing non -consensual or potentially illegal , and they were not complained about it at the time. ”

One person told the BBC that she had had a sexual meeting with Brand in the disabled toilets during the BBC visit after winning a competition on radio 6. They told the investigation that, while the meeting had been consensual, they considered that the brand had “abused its position and took advantage of it”.