Humour is subjective and if you find comedian Russell Brand funny then good luck to you. Personally, I think I’d get more laughs having a rotten tooth pulled out with pliars. But, there y’go.

As a person, Brand comes across as a conceited, horrible narcissist. Does that make him a rapist? Well, no. But he does have questions to answer about some very serious allegations which he denies. Innocent in the eyes of the law until proven guilty, yes, but there must be a thorough look at all this.

For a start, the women who have had the courage to come forward deserve nothing less than to be listened to and have their allegations investigated properly and there are issues of public interest about the way Brand’s behaviour has been handled by people in authority at the broadcast organisations he worked for.

The response to the breaking story at the weekend reveals many things about society today which are alarming.

The popularity of such a vile individual, which enables him to make millions says something about our values. Brand has an incredible following on social media with 3.8 million accounts on Instagram, 2.2 million on TikTok and 6.6 million on YouTube. He’s virtually a cult figure and the more offensive he is, it seems the more money he makes.

What is wrong with you, people? We’re in an era of celebrity and mediocre celebrity at that.

The response across social media and elsewhere to the claims, with people jumping to his defence and suggesting some establishment witch hunt, has revealed a warped sense of equivocation about the dreadful allegations in a media corrupted by the agendas of one side or the other.

The saga raises questions about how our society treats women, again; particularly women who suffer at the hands of abusive men. And how they’re not listened to by people in power.

And the vital role in a healthy democracy of investigative journalism is being undermined by those who turn their anger on the work of those who have brought the allegations about Brand into the public domain.

It’s 15 years since Brand and Jonathan Ross caused outrage with their BBC radio show in a prank call to actor Andrew Sachs, famous as Manuel in “Fawlty Towers.” Brand had been in a relationship with Sachs’ granddaughter, Georgina Baillie when she was just 20, and Brand left cruel and vulgar messages for Sachs about his sex life with the poor man’s granddaughter. This was all broadcast.

Baillie was left humiliated, but after a period off air, Brand made a lot of money by referring to the incident in his comedy routines. Nice man. Yeah, he now says, I was promiscuous but I’m really a good guy now.

More recently, he has entered the public debate with his videos often featuring interviews with far-right influencers and promoting conspiracy theories on issues such as the Covid pandemic, the war in Ukraine and the climate crisis.

This allows him to promote himself as some sort of anti-establishment figure; ironically an anti-establishment figure with millions which allow him a privileged lifestyle and, indeed, the money and power to fight the people who allege he abused them. He’s accused of sexual assault, rape and predatory behaviour between 2006 and 2013 by four women. One woman claimed she had a relationship with Brand when she was 16 and he was 31 and alleged that he would refer to her as “the child” and encourage her to lie to her parents.

Another woman alleges that Brand raped her against a wall in his Los Angeles home and that she visited a rape crisis centre the same day. She received therapy there for the next five months.

All these allegations, which Brand denies, have come out as the result of investigative journalism by Channel Four and the Times/Sunday Times during years of work.

And yet, an example of the reaction came when GB News presenter Beverley Turner admitted that she hadn’t actually watched the programme or read the reports when she responded by tweeting that Brand was a “hero.” No wonder her fellow-presenter Andrew Pierce said it was “shameful.”

Turner and many others have leapt to the defence of Brand because they support things he says about his so-called anti-establishment stance.

Worryingly, a large section of the right-wing media now has a vested interest in attacking the “mainstream media”. And they are succeeding in making people mistrust the media. And in particular, there are a lot of critics who are denigrating the long and honourable tradition of investigative journalism.

Look, I have no qualms about saying that there are issues of trust in the media today; but we need far more, not less, responsible investigative journalism in a corrupt world.

Throughout the years, there have been many injustices and evils brought to light by good investigations. A great example is the Watergate investigation by The Washington Post’s Woodward and Bernstein into the nefarious activity of United States president Richard Nixon.

And more locally, in the 1990s it was UTV journalist Chris Moore who brought to light the 40-year reign of terror by child molester Father Brendan Smyth.

Another colleague, Trevor Birney dug deep into the deaths of young children in Northern Ireland hospitals with hyponatraemia and his work resulted in a public inquiry which found that some of the children died as a result of hospital mistakes which were covered up.

Last week at the launch of the new-look Impartial Reporter, the editor Rodney Edwards recalled his work over 18 months in exposing sex abuse cases in this area. There were 58 cases, 49 victims, 61 suspects and with 18 files sent to the Public Prosecution Service, there are two trials now pending.

I mention Moore, Birney and Edwards in particular because I know all three personally and I know them to be journalists of integrity who have all the right motives for exposing wrongdoing. Indeed, they take criticism for doing so. They accept that a journalist can’t always be popular, the journalist who wants to be everyone’s friend is no use at all.

But aside from them, history is littered with journalism exposing wrongdoing all over the world which the authorities either failed to find or deliberately ignored.

Jimmy Savile never appeared in court; it was a brave journalist who brought his evil into the light.

So, spare me the utter nonsense of criticising the motives of the painstaking work of the journalists who investigated Russell Brand. The people who immediately jumped to his defence and instead doubted the motives of the journalists show a disturbing trend.

We don’t know whether or not Brand’s behaviour was illegal. We do know, I would contend, that he was guilty of wrongdoing in terms of his disgusting behaviour.

So, whether he faces a court or not, as far as I’m concerned I hope he gets his comeuppance and I congratulate the investigative journalists who have brought this matter into public view..