![](\"https:\/\/metro.co.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/SEC_172376170-2b14.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Andrew Neil compared the rise of Russell Brand to Jimmy Saville in a scathing attack on British culture.<\/p>\n
The former BBC and GB News broadcaster, 74, appeared on Piers Morgan: Uncensored on Tuesday night where he offered his opinion on the investigation into Brand, which revealed multiple allegations of sexual assault which Brand has denied.<\/p>\n
Neil slammed the \u2018hypocrisy\u2019 of people \u2018rushing to dissociate themselves\u2019 with Brand and asked why they were \u2018ever associated with him in the first place,\u2019 listing a large number of media outlets and networks Brand had been interviewed on or, in some cases, worked on.<\/p>\n
He described Brand as \u2018neither funny but consistently vulgar, rude and unwatchable,\u2019 and asked why \u2018the BBC, Channel 4, The Guardian, The News State, the Labour Party, ever want to be associated with essentially this sleazebag in the first place?\u2019<\/p>\n
The broadcaster went on to embark on a scathing takedown of British culture, which he said \u2018elevates people of no talent, people of no redeeming value whatsoever, to the status of national icons,\u2019 comparing the rise of Brand to that of Jimmy Saville.<\/p>\n
\u2018I give you Jimmy Saville. The classic example of that. A man of no talent who had a hotline to Margaret Thatcher and the Royal Family and in a different way \u2013 I\u2019m not comparing the two in terms of what they did \u2013 in a different way we elevated Russell Brand to be this man that seems to have the pulse of young people in British society, whose every word we should hang on, and was worthy of interviews on BBC\u2019s Newsnight or Guardian conferences\u2026\u2019<\/p>\n
![](\"https:\/\/metro.co.uk\/wp-content\/themes\/metro-parent\/img\/fallback.png\")
<\/p>\n
He went on: \u2018It\u2019s just nonsense, and this power of celebrity which seems to have the ability to make sensible people stupid, this is another classic example of it and it is corrosive to our culture.\u2019<\/p>\n
Neil was also asked what some are describing as the \u2018trial by media\u2019 Brand is undergoing, but dismissed this, saying the media is doing what it is supposed to.<\/p>\n
Referring to the Harvey Weinstein allegations, he said \u2018women speaking to journalists first is an interim stage before seeking wider proceedings and facilitating their ability to do so. And I think that\u2019s another plus to it.\u2019<\/p>\n
He continued: \u2018It isn\u2019t trial by media. The newspaper and TV station have done their job. Now if there\u2019s going to be a trial it\u2019s a job for the police \u2026 the job for the newspaper is to expose and reveal, that\u2019s what they\u2019ve done.\u2019<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Earlier in the same episode, Morgan himself addressed an old interview in which he had jokingly asked Brand about being a \u2018sexual predator,\u2019 noting the 2006 interview took place the same year Brand is alleged to have been in a relationship with a 16-year-old schoolgirl.<\/p>\n
Before the Times piece was published, followed by a Channel 4 documentary hours later, Brand had taken to Twitter, aka X, where he said he \u2018absolutely refutes very serious allegations\u2019 being made against him.<\/p>\n
While the allegations were not named at the time, he said he had been approached by a mainstream TV network and a mainstream newspaper with \u2018extremely disturbing\u2019 correspondence listing \u2018a litany of extremely egregious and aggressive attacks.\u2019<\/p>\n
Amid some \u2018stupid stuff\u2019 in the correspondence, including, he said, that he \u2018shouldn\u2019t be able to attack mainstream media narratives,\u2019 were \u2018some very serious allegations that I absolutely refute.\u2019<\/p>\n
He added: \u2018As I\u2019ve written about extensively in my book, I was very, very promiscuous. Now during that time of promiscuity, the relationships that I had were absolutely always consensual.\u2019<\/p>\n