A BBC inquiry into the behaviour of comedian Russell Brand during his employment with the corporation has uncovered a culture where individuals “felt unable to raise” issues regarding the presenter, fearing he “would always get his way and therefore they stayed silent”.
Undertaken by Peter Johnston, BBC’s director of editorial complaints and reviews, the review delved into Brand’s conduct on BBC 6 Music and BBC Radio 2 from 2006 to 2008.
Brand, 49, stands firm against accusations of rape, assault, and emotional abuse, maintaining that his sexual relationships have been “absolutely always consensual”.
In September 2023, a collaborative exposé by The Sunday Times, The Times and Channel 4 Dispatches brought light to allegations from four women who claimed Brand sexually assaulted them between 2006 and 2013.
The extensive review, which concluded at a cost of £662,060, scrutinised incidents said to involve Brand urinating “into cups or bottles while in the studio, throwing objects, allegations of sex on the premises including with competition winners, and exposure while in the studio in front of staff and guests”, alongside remarks made live on air.
It also examined managerial oversights, including Brand’s rapport with ex-Radio 2 controller Lesley Douglas, who stepped down following a contentious prank call Brand made to actor Andrew Sachs of Fawlty Towers fame.
Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy described the revelations, inclusive of the workforce’s silence over concerns, as “horrendous”. She pressed the BBC to provide reassurances to its employees and the broader public that it handles such matters with utmost seriousness.
Philippa Childs, head of the broadcasting union Bectu, labelled the report “deeply troubling” and criticised it as indicative of a broader issue in the industry. The investigation spearheaded by Mr Johnston covered eight allegations about Brand, confirming that the BBC tackled only one formal complaint.
He stated: “I am grateful to those who have come forward to talk to me and my team and I have apologised on behalf of the BBC to those most directly affected by what I have documented here.”
He reflected on the past culture, saying: “The culture of the time undoubtedly influenced what was acceptable/tolerated, but I have found that a number of individuals had concerns about Russell Brand’s behaviour which they felt unable to raise then.
“A lot of interviewees believed, rightly or wrongly, that Russell Brand would always get his way and therefore they stayed silent (and I note here my finding above that the one complaint that was made in 2007 was not dealt with effectively when it was made).”
He noted improvements since then, adding: “The processes for raising any concerns were also not as developed as they are now.”
“In the intervening years, the BBC has introduced other mechanisms and routes for staff to raise concerns.”
After the report came to light, the BBC responded, acknowledging: “The review considered eight complaints of misconduct about Russell Brand, only two of which were made while he was engaged by the BBC, one formally and one informally.
“It is of great concern that some of these individuals felt unable to raise concerns about Russell Brand’s behaviour at the time, and the BBC has apologised to them as part of this review.”
The BBC has acknowledged issues with past broadcasts of Russell Brand’s Radio 2 shows, stating: “It is also clear that there were compliance inadequacies on some of Russell Brand’s Radio 2 shows which led to content being aired that would not be broadcast today. Russell Brand left the BBC in 2008 following a high-profile editorial breach.”
Furthermore, the corporation highlighted an ongoing police inquiry, saying: “As has been reported, there is an ongoing police investigation into Russell Brand. The BBC has been in contact with the Metropolitan Police throughout the review and they have seen the report.”
The BBC also noted: “The BBC acknowledges that Russell Brand categorically denies all public allegations made against him.”
The broadcaster admitted that presenters had exploited their roles in the past but assured the public that procedures have been strengthened since 2008, including a specific process for handling severe allegations and the introduction of an anti-bullying and harassment policy. The review addressed an accusation from a woman working in the same building as BBC’s Los Angeles office.
In her allegation, Brand purportedly exposed himself to her and later joked about it on his radio show in 2008. The complainant requested for her case to be “escalated” in 2019, which was then forwarded to an LA line manager and allegedly passed on to BBC News in London.
Mr Johnston reflected on the episode, commenting that the “the compliance process in place for pre-recorded shows around the time of the original broadcast did not do what it was supposed to in respect of this episode” and described both the initial response and the management of the 2019 complaint as “inadequate”.
Another claim examined was made by a woman known as “Alice”, who alleged that BBC cars transported her, including from her school to Brand’s house when she was 16 and purportedly in a relationship with him. Mr Johnston spoke to Alice and scrutinised her claims, which included interviewing drivers and investigating Brand’s access to cars during his tenure at 6 Music.
He concluded it is “highly unlikely that the cars described by Alice were ‘chauffeur driven’ BBC cars or BBC management cars”. .
“If Russell Brand did persuade a taxi or mini-cab pre-booked on his behalf by the BBC to make these journeys, I find that this is likely to have been done without the knowledge of the BBC staff who booked his cars for him in advance and to and from fixed locations,” he added. “Alice also agrees that this is likely to be the case.”
The report delved into a complaint lodged by a BBC employee who, after voicing formal concerns in 2007, asked to leave Brand’s Radio 2 show. The staff member alleged that Brand urinated in a cup and a bottle, and “behaved in an aggressive manner throwing objects at the screen in anger”.
Mr Johnston found that the staff member informed his line manager, who then communicated with Ms Douglas. However, Ms Douglas asserts she does “not recall these concerns ever being raised with her and disputes the review’s reliance upon what she considers to be unspecific hearsay evidence”.
Mr Johnston remarked that it’s evident to him that “it clear that the perception for most staff working on these shows was that Brand and the then controller did have a close working relationship” which she has refuted. The staff member continued to voice concerns in 2013 and 2016, according to the report.
The investigation also noted that “no current or former BBC staff we spoke to confirmed having direct knowledge of Russell Brand having sex in toilets/on BBC premises” nor were they aware of claims he had “inappropriate engagement with competition winners”. Nonetheless, an individual told the review they engaged in “consensual sex with Russell Brand on BBC premises”, after winning a contest on his 6 Music programme.
They felt Brand “abused his position” and “taken advantage of them”, the report detailed.
Mr Johnston added: “Some confirmed directly that they witnessed Russell Brand urinating in the studio – which by necessity will have involved him exposing himself – and some of the compliance forms for pre-recorded shows we have reviewed and shows we have listened to refer to exposure in the studio being discussed during shows.”
He further mentioned that a few individuals closely connected to Brand’s show depicted him as “as promiscuous or out-of-control, but said that they did not witness anything non-consensual or potentially illegal, nor did they make complaints about this at the time”, but clarified that they did not observe anything non-consensual or potentially illegal, nor did they lodge complaints about such behaviour at the time.
Mr Johnston disclosed that an individual had claimed they endured a “non-consensual encounter with Russell Brand on the set of a BBC radio production”, with the person accusing Brand of having “tucked his fingers down their trousers and underwear and pulled them towards him”. At the time, there was no complaint filed with the BBC, according to the report.
In November, the Crown Prosecution Service confirmed consideration of charges against Brand.
Following an inquiry into the allegations, the Met Police stated they had received several reports concerning sexual offences from women both in London and across the UK.
The majority of expenses for the review were attributed to legal fees totalling £597,300, with additional expenditures for staff support during the review (£60,840) and resources allocated to conduct the interviews (£3,920). The report also mentioned Brand’s choice not to engage in the review process.
A total of 39 individuals were questioned in the review. Ms Childs reflected: “The BBC’s acknowledgement that Brand was perceived as too influential for staff to complain about and that some presenters had been able to abuse their positions, is deeply troubling.”
She emphasised the importance of a safe environment for employees to express concerns, particularly within an industry where power dynamics can be markedly pronounced.
She highlighted that even high-profile incidents like the Brand case, which Bectu brought to the attention of broadcasters in 2023, have “done little to shift the dial on the industry’s bullying and harassment problem”, as per the findings of the industry body. Ms Childs expressed: “Many creative industry workers will today feel frustrated that the same warm words about change are being bandied about, but it is clear that a radical step-change is needed for the sector to meaningfully tackle this issue.”
She praised the creation of the new Creative Industries Independent Standards Authority but emphasised that broadcasters must “support a culture where workers are confident that allegations are taken seriously”. Ms Nandy remarked: “The complaints against Russell Brand set out in this report are horrendous. As is the fact that staff felt unable to raise concerns because they did not think that they would be believed or taken seriously.
“I commend those who bravely came forward to share their appalling experiences. The BBC must now reflect on the conclusions and take action to reassure its staff and the wider public that it takes these issues seriously.”
She noted that this instance is not isolated and urged for measures to be implemented so that “power imbalances and a perception that certain stars cannot be challenged” are confronted.
“The BBC, and the wider industry, must now urgently consider what more they can do to make sure that abuse and harassment by anyone, no matter who they are, is not tolerated in any of their workplaces,” added Ms Nandy.
Get the latest celebrity gossip and telly news sent straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily Showbiz newsletter here.