Does PETA know about Russell Brand’s sick stage act involving dead animals?

Sacked Former Radio 2 presenter Russell Brand appears on the cover of the latest edition of a vegetarian starter kit that is produced by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). The Guardian reports that PETA has refused to replace him in response to angry calls and emails following the BBC obscene ‘phone calls scandal.

I’m shocked that PETA had anything to do with Brand in the first place. According to this article, dated 2005, he used to perform ‘a show involving pelting the audience with dead animals’.

In the article, he says: ‘Because of some of the stuff I’ve done in the past, chopping up dead animals, being arrested, or being hospitalised, when things get a bit more exciting and chaotic, I like it’.

Does this kind of performance help encourage respect for living animals and the ethical treatment of them?



  • Napkanista says:

    1) PETA shouldn’t have to stand up for Russ over the phone message scandal. The calls had nothing to do with Russ’s vegetarian status and people shouldn’t stir up unrelated controversy.

    2) These dead animal incidents were seven years ago while Russell was completely messed up on drugs that altered his mind, and he wasn’t famous then. It seems likely that even the most vocal celeb vegetarians may have done something in their past that wouldn’t make them good role models for PETA.

    3) Considering that the article you are quoting from is 2005, I’m pretty sure PETA know about it. I mean they did allow him to be voted Sexiest Vegetarian for two years.

    Please do the world a favor and stop bringing up ridiculously old news to further some silly hate agenda against Russell Brand. It doesn’t make you look any better to attack the man when he’s down.

    PS. He resigned, he wasn’t sacked!

  • gary says:

    I realise this will be news to many people, but being drunk or on drugs does not excuse anyone from the consequences of their actions.

    Years later, apparently now drugs-free, and Russell Brand is still making bad choices and (in the case of the recent ‘phone messages) doing hateful, cruel and illegal things. So what’s the excuse now? Do you ever consider the victim? Or are you one of the people who thinks what he and Jonathan Ross did was fine because you thought it was funny?

    If someone is the public face of an organisation or company then obviously what they did in the past is relevant. Personally I wouldn’t expect PETA to withdraw him from publicity because of the ‘phone scandal. But chopping up dead animals and throwing them at an audience is disgusting and, I suggest, incompatible with a charity that campaigns for the ‘ethical treatment of animals’.

    Though, going on my own experience, hypocrisy from a charity wouldn’t exactly surprise me.

    I read the Female First article a long time ago. As these facts hadn’t appeared in any of the news reports, as the ‘phone incident concerned lack of empathy and Russell Brand’s character and as Brand was getting favourable publicity in news reports about supporting PETA, I feel fully justified in writing about this.

    You’re right, he wasn’t sacked. He resigned.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please answer this maths question (this prevents spam) *