Charlie Walden

I've met Russell Brand twice (I think): Once when I hosted a Guardian Live event about his book in 2014. Another time I interviewed him for The Big Issue when I was guest editing in 2015. He also gave my publishers an endorsement for my book The Establishment, which I was mortified about at the time mostly because I thought it was so OTT it would obviously invite ridicule (which it did). At the time I saw him as a crude means to reach disillusioned younger people with left-wing politics - the sort of people who wouldn't be reached by conventional left-wing journalists and politicians. As a result I was willing to overlook, or just not look into, his history of problematic behaviour / statements, including sexism. I convinced myself that he was on some sort of journey and that was a good thing. That was an obvious misjudgement. I did think he was a bit of a chancer / had a messianic complex, but overlooked that too as a necessary evil in reaching disengaged people. But that was clearly his main driving force and he clearly ended up concluding that right-wing politics was a better vehicle to satisfy it. It's an important lesson in not stupidly engaging clearly problematic figures, however charismatic or however much mass appeal they have, in the service of a cause. What I would say is that right now we should be centring the survivors of a rapist and sexual predator. I personally don't really think those trying to point score have his survivors' interests at heart. I would also argue that those with the big questions to answer are the right-wing figures who continue to stand by him and spread conspiratorial nonsense in his defence. Finally, let's hope that other possible survivors of Russell Brand feel able to come forward.