What do these names have in common?
A short list of men who have come out to defend Russell Brand, since the accusations went public, last Saturday.
A few days ago, I wrote an article about Britain’s sordid history as it relates to looking after its most precious resources — its children.
There were people who agreed with what was published and there were those who felt that the accused should be allowed due process.
Due process, granted.
But only to those who have merited due process.
But I am not too sure if that is necessarily applicable to Britain’s worst ever narcissist.
When one is used to getting away with very bad behaviour for a very long time, you stop worrying about covering your tracks; you put so much about yourself, out there.
And not bothering to cover his tracks, is what Brand has done quite exceptionally well.
In his head, sex is so accessible and it can be got with minimum effort. And when it doesn’t happen with minimum exertion, then coercive action had to be the next step with the women in his orbit.
Not once, not twice, not thrice but several times over.
But my question is directed at the blokes here: why do men see the need to defend Russell Brand?
Why do they feel the need to go on about due process?
Doesn’t it indicate that something isn’t right with the majority of men, out there?
The BBC, which is a white, middle-aged, middle-class, male and conservative institution, knew that there were credible allegations against Brand for the longest time and they chose to look the other way.
The comedy circuit, which is also overwhelmingly white and male, also knew about the man’s many sins and yet, nothing was done about it and now folks are coming out to say due process.