Sexual

THE BBC has been accused of enabling Russell Brand with the disgraced star claiming his Beeb boss was “incredibly tolerant” of his behaviour.

Brand, 51 – due to be sentenced on Monday – is being monitored around the clock by guards after he was found guilty on Thursday.

Brand was facing trial for three counts of rape, one count of attempted indecent assault and three counts of sexual assault.

Following eight and a half hours of deliberation the jury delivered guilty verdicts on three counts of sexual assault and one count of rape, bringing the four-week trial at Southwark Crown Court to a close.

He was refused bail and was sent down to the cells with two female dock officers after the verdict was handed down.

The jury found Brand guilty of groping an MTV worker during a party at a Soho bar in 2004, but not guilty of going on to rape her in a toilet.

TIME’S UP

Rapist Brand will spend YEARS behind bars when beast finds out fate in days

BEHIND BARS

Brand’s ‘humiliating’ strip search & ‘inedible’ meal on first night in jail

He was also convicted of kissing and groping a Capital Radio worker after encountering her in a corridor in 2005.

And, he was found guilty of raping a 21-year-old fan at his Hampstead house after meeting her at a 2009 stand-up show at the Hammersmith Apollo.

Brand was also convicted by the jury of sexually assaulting a Channel 4 worker in 2009 when she had been forced to give him a massage.

The convictions piled further pressure on the BBC after it was revealed Brand had boasted his boss at the Beeb was “incredibly tolerant” of his sexual behaviour.

Britain’s public broadcaster has faced scrutiny over the actions of its stars in the past, including Huw Edwards and Jimmy Savile.

Channel 4 and MTV are also now under the spotlight for their alleged failures in how Brand’s behaviour was managed.

Liz Kershaw, a radio DJ who worked with the BBC for some 30 years, accused the corporation of “enabling Brand’s behaviour.”

Writing in The Telegraph, she said: “Maybe his enablers should finally have been brought to book. Media executives, comedy club promoters.

“His agent. After all, as Brand once said, ‘people will let you be a nutter as long as they are making money out of it.’”

Brand claimed in the mid-2000s that Lesley Douglas, his boss when he worked at BBC 2, “loved me and gave me lots of room – so I took that room.”

He claimed this included allowing him to use the disabled toilets for sex with radio competition winners.

Brand was also accused of raping two more women and could now face further criminal charges, it was revealed after the verdicts.

The court heard that one of the complaints comes from a woman who dated Brand when he was 30 years old and another was a 16-year-old schoolgirl.

The Metropolitan Police has confirmed that investigations are ongoing into the two allegations made against Brand.

After today’s guilty verdicts were delivered, Brand’s barrister launched into an extraordinary foul-mouthed rant at a journalist as he left the courtroom.

Ian Winter KC launched into the verbal tirade at Sunday Times journalist Rosamund Urwin.

He said to her: “I hope you are pleased with yourself”, and she was heard replying: “I’m pleased justice has been done.”

Mr Winter said during the clash: “Well, it wasn’t. You f***** it.” “Congratulations,” he added.

During the trial, Mr Winter had argued that reporting of allegations against Brand by Ms Urwin and others had “poisoned the well”, and rendered it impossible for him to have a fair trial.

The trial judge, Mr Justice Bennathan, dismissed an attempt by Brand to block his trial from taking place because of negative media coverage.

Brand tried to smear journalists as “criminals” and claimed women accusing him of abuse were “fictional” in a doomed bid to avoid trial.

He argued he had been “destroyed” by a “trial by media” when the Times, the Sunday Times and a Channel 4 Dispatches documentary exposed him as a sexual predator in 2023.

A series of women came forward to police afterwards, speaking out about being raped, forcibly kissed and groped by Brand during his showbiz career.

Media claims published in 2023 sparked a criminal investigation and Brand was interviewed under caution four times between November 2023 and January 2024.

The former BBC Radio 2 presenter went on trial after he was accused of offences against six women from 1999 to 2009.

Brand denied all the charges, insisting any sexual contact was consensual.

The court heard how Brand became a “ruthless, calculated and manipulative” predator as he sought to satisfy his “voracious” sexual appetite as part of a depraved campaign to sleep with 5,000 women.

During the trial,  Brand’s lawyer Ian Winter, had argued that reporting of allegations against Brand by Ms Urwin and others had “poisoned the well”, and rendered it impossible for him to have a fair trial.

The trial judge, Mr Justice Bennathan, dismissed an attempt by Brand to block his trial from taking place because of negative media coverage.

Brand tried to smear journalists as “criminals” and claimed women accusing him of abuse were “fictional” in a doomed bid to avoid trial.

He argued he had been “destroyed” by a “trial by media” when the Times, the Sunday Times and a Channel 4 Dispatches documentary exposed him as a sexual predator in 2023.

The convictions sparked claims the BBC and other broadcasters turned a blind eye to Brand’s behaviour.

An internal corporation report, published in 2023, found that numerous complaints about Brand had been ignored.

His former BBC boss previously issued a statement via a spokesperson.

It read: “Ms Douglas did not at any time encourage, enable and/or fail herself to take any adequate steps within her power with regard to the conduct of Mr Brand of which she was aware.”

Following Brand’s conviction, a BBC spokesperson said: “Firstly, the thoughts of everyone at the BBC are with the brave women who came forward and told their stories which led to a conviction in this case.

“There can be no place for the abuse of power.

“Across the industry, we must work together to ensure that anyone who suffers at someone else’s hand feels able to report it, that their concerns are taken seriously and that they are listened to.

“We published a detailed report in January 2025 into how complaints about Russell Brand’s conduct were handled. This looked at eight allegations of misconduct while he worked here between 2006 and 2008.

“It was of great concern to us that some people felt unable to raise concerns about Brand’s behaviour. We apologised to those impacted, for both the culture and failings at the time, and we reiterate that apology again today.”

The Sun has contacted the BBC for comment.

Faculty vote will continue until next Friday and could send message that school’s president has lost their confidence.

Cornell University has begun a no-confidence vote for the school’s leadership after an alleged gang rape prompted public outcry over sexual assault on college campuses and scrutiny over the university’s handling of the case.

Faculty members started the no-confidence vote on Thursday that is expected to continue until November 6. The initiative is non-binding, but could send a message that president Michael Kotlikoff has lost the confidence of the school’s faculty.

“Hundreds of students, staff, faculty and alumni approached the sponsors of this resolution to emphasize to us that the Jane Doe case is but a tip of the iceberg,” said Paul Ortiz, the lead faculty sponsor of the resolution.

A lawsuit filed last month alleges that a female student, identified as Jane Doe, was drugged and gang raped by seven male students at a fraternity house in 2024.

The case has raised questions about whether the university acted with sufficient urgency or downplayed the alleged abuse in order to protect its reputation. The university initially shut down the fraternity and suspended the male students, two of whom were later expelled.

Faculty considered on Wednesday whether to postpone a vote of no confidence, with some urging patience and others arguing that the vote was a necessary response to institutional reluctance to take the issue seriously.

The Associated Press news agency reported that the debate took place after a group of 20 female science and engineering faculty members called on Kotlikoff to resign in a letter to trustees.

“What our community needed was clear leadership; instead, it faced a leadership vacuum,” the letter stated.

Kotlikoff sought to address the fallout in a statement earlier this month in which he listed a number of preliminary responses.

“I am deeply sorry for the harm Jane Doe suffered in 2024, and appalled that this act of sexual violence occurred within our Cornell community,” he said.

Two of the men accused of taking part in the alleged rape of Jane Doe have asked for New York Attorney General Letitia James to be removed from her role overseeing the renewed criminal probe into the case over social media posts from the attorney general expressing support for the accuser prior to her appointment.

A judge on Thursday appeared sceptical of one of the challenges, which James’ office has said are “without merit”.

Already accused by his wife of sexually assaulting her, Marcellus Wiley is the defendant in a lawsuit filed Tuesday in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging that he raped a 22-year-old USC student in 1999.

Wiley, a former NFL defensive end and longtime sports media personality, also has been accused by three women of sexual misconduct when he was a student at Columbia University in 1994 and by four additional women of similar criminal behavior from 1995 to 2009.

Those filings support a motion-seeking class-action status against Wiley and Columbia by one of the accusers, who filed her initial complaint in 2023 alleging that Wiley raped her in his Columbia dorm room in November 1994 after inviting her to study. She claimed university officials discouraged her from going to the police and handled the matter internally.

The filing Tuesday alleges that “Jane Doe” met Wiley in February 1999 and went on two dates with him. The lawsuit states that she told Wiley — who had just completed his third season with the Buffalo Bills — that she was sexually inexperienced and not interested in a romantic relationship. Nevertheless, she accompanied him to a L.A. nightclub and agreed to spend the night in his hotel room. Doe alleged that Wiley raped her after she fell asleep fully clothed.

“Jane told Wiley to stop and repeated ‘Please stop’ several times and told him, ‘You’re not listening to me,’” the lawsuit states.

While driving Doe to her dorm room, Wiley suggested that she be tested for a sexually transmitted disease because he “had the clap,” according to the filing. She claims they never spoke again.

Doe wrote that she filed a police report after a rape kit tested positive for Wiley’s semen. More than a month later she claims the district attorney’s office informed her that Wiley denied Doe’s allegations and that, “therefore, no charges would be filed.” Doe is suing Wiley for sexual battery, assault, battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Wiley responded to the lawsuit by pointing to MenTooProject.org, a digital advocacy movement and platform he launched in August after the State of Florida declined to file charges against him following a July 4 domestic dispute with his estranged wife, Annemarie Wiley. She alleged that he poked her in the face and threatened to kill her in front of their 7-year-old daughter. Wiley denied the allegations.

The project, a spin-off of the #MenToo awareness campaign that gained widespread traction in India in 2019, invites men to “join us in the fight for truth, fairness, and justice,” Wiley wrote on the website. “My grandmother told me the truth always outruns a lie. She taught me not to chase the lie, just give the truth time to catch it.”

Wiley, 51, frequently addresses the allegations against him on his YouTube channel, “Dat Dude TV.”

“Pick a date, pick the encounter, pick the allegation. For every one of them, I either saw, communicated through email, text, phone, was invited by these individuals after these dates to engage, to be intimate, or all of the above, after the dates that are in question,” Wiley said in a May 2006 episode.

In a court filing two months later requesting a temporary restraining order, Annemarie Wiley accused him of raping her four separate times. The first alleged instance occurred in 2012 when they were dating and the other three allegedly took place in January 2026. Annemarie, a nurse anesthetist and former cast member of “The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills” was granted the order as well as full custody of their children. She filed for divorce the same day.

In Sepember, a judge granted her request to extend the restraining order for three years. The July 4 episode that triggered the restraining order resulted in Wiley’s arrest, but a month later the Orange County State Attorney’s Office dropped criminal charges, stating that testimonial evidence lacked corroborating physical or other evidence required to pursue a conviction.

Wiley, who grew up in Compton and played 10 years in the NFL including three with the Chargers, defended himself publicly through a long social media post that read in part, “I owe it to my children to truthfully document what they and I have endured. To do that, I must address the lies Annemarie has told about me by telling the truth about her and our marriage.

“Over the years, I have compiled videos, photographs, text messages, emails, and other evidence that directly contradicts those baseless claims and provides a factual record of our family and the events leading to this unfortunate divorce,” he wrote.

Wiley has repeatedly lamented that the allegations, lawsuits and media reports could have a negative impact on his young son and two daughters. He pointed out on social media in May that three sexual assault claims were dismissed in New York County court in September 2025, while suggesting that his son, Marcellus Wiley Jr., could suffer from the allegations.

“To me, it’s about my son’s name, that he will one day Google and think this is about him, but he’s gonna know it’s about his dad,” he said on “Dat Dude TV” in May. “And how dare you stain the brain of my child.”

RUSSELL Brand had an “insane sexual appetite” and treated women poorly, his former PA told his rape trial yesterday.

Helen Berger described him as a “peacock” who would allegedly find random women online to satisfy his lust.

Ms Berger, who worked with the comedian from June 2006 to February 2007, said: “Though I’ve worked with a lot of celebrities before and seen a lot of people normalising bad behaviour, this was on another level.”

In a statement read to Southwark crown court, she said Brand, now 51, was having sex day and night and described him getting “antsy” on deadlines.

She said he would joke: “May I go and have sex now?”

But she said sexual activity would also make him depressed.

Read more on Russell Brand

BRAND TRIAL

Russell Brand in ‘f*****g sheets’ rant after alleged rape, court hears

‘RAPE’ TRIAL

Brand jury shown pics of home where he ‘raped woman & told her clean up mess’

Ms Berger, who worked for Brand through his agent John Noel, told the court she would often be called to go to the comedian’s flat in Camden, North London, where she found he was always in his underwear.

She described seeing him use MySpace to find women and invite them over for sex.

She also recalled being instructed to get phone numbers for Brand from female fans when she first started working for him but said she felt uncomfortable and told him she would not do it anymore.

Ms Berger said she quit working for Brand within months because she became sick of him.

She wrote: “I worked a lot and was exhausted, emotional, and it was a lot to deal with.

“I always had to manage my emotions around him. He had an insane sexual appetite and was sleeping with people day and night.

“He was very open about what his needs were. We didn’t have a specific conversation about it.”

Brand, supported in court by wife Laura Gallacher, denies three rapes, three sexual assaults and indecent assault on six women between 1999 and 2009.

Mr Justice Bennathan told jurors the defence case would begin today.

The settlement is the second-largest after an $880m ​deal reached by the Archdiocese of Los ​Angeles in 2024.

The Archdiocese of New York has agreed to pay more than $800m to settle the legal claims of about 1,300 survivors of sexual abuse by clergy.

New York Archbishop Ronald Hicks said on Saturday that the settlement will be formally signed on November 6 after an agreement with the plaintiffs and their lawyers.

“We are on the verge of being able to, please God, bring some measure of healing and reconciliation to all victim-survivors,” he wrote in an email sent to his priests and shared by the archdiocese’s news outlet.

“This agreement will also allow the archdiocese to turn its full attention once again to its mission of preaching the Gospel, healing the sick, caring for the poor and needy, welcoming the stranger, and educating our children,” he added.

According to The New York Times, which broke the story, each of the approximately 1,300 survivors will receive at least $250,000 from the Archdiocese of New York and potentially more depending on the severity of the abuse suffered.

The settlement is the second-largest of its kind after an $880m deal reached by the Archdiocese of Los Angeles in 2024.

“The unanimous agreement of survivors who filed claims against the Archdiocese of New York marks a powerful moment in the pursuit of justice,” Jeff Anderson, a lawyer representing people who filed more than 1,000 claims against the Catholic Church in New York state, said in a statement.

“Through their courage, sacrifice, and determination, survivors have helped bring about a reckoning and a meaningful step toward accountability.”

Scandals and settlements

The agreement marks the end of years of negotiations with lawyers representing the plaintiffs, as the Catholic Church in the United States has been mired in sexual abuse scandals since the early 2000s.

In the 2000s, media investigations revealed that Catholic priests in the US had committed sexual abuse against thousands of children over several decades, and that church leaders had often covered up these cases or transferred the offending priests instead of reporting them to civil authorities.

Dioceses across the country have had to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in damages, and programmes have been created to compensate survivors without going to trial.

In June, the Archdiocese of San Francisco announced it had reached an agreement to pay $395m to about 530 survivors of sexual abuse committed by its clergy to settle their lawsuits.