Russell Brand

[gmm243]

I have never liked him, turned him off anytime he came on the box.

Was watching the news last night and I  was giving off about him. I said I couldn't believe he had bedded so many women as he just looks like he smells to me and is not in the slightest bit funny.

My wife responded thst she could see why he had so much success and that there was definitely 'something' about him. I always thought she had great taste!!

 

[Rewulf]

17 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

It is up to the police/CPS to see if there are charges to be brought.  Maybe they will find nothing?

Someone has to report a crime first.
So far , that hasnt happened.

17 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

IF it ever comes to court, they (the accusers) will have to give evidence on oath ........ and risk perjury if not true.

What evidence ?
Trust me , in the unlikely event a crime does get reported 10-15 years after it allegedly happened, the fact that they went on TV first , anonymously , seriously impedes any fair trial, therefore the CPS would have a tough time proceeding with a case.
But that was never the intention.

[Penelope]

21 hours ago, welsh1 said:

He has 6.6 million followers on you tube and 3.8 million on instagram.

And quite a lot of what he talks about is eye opening.

My view on him has changed over the years; previously I'd have held views similar to many in this thread.

21 hours ago, Humblepie said:

I never liked him and didn’t think he was funny at all, until I was persuaded to go to one of his gigs. Came out of the gig with my mind completely changed. Superb live act, very intelligent and most of all very, very funny.
 

If he is guilty of the accusations, then the book should be thrown at him. However trial by the media is wrong and I suspect it is being done because he has spoken out against the woke brigade, the covid scam, WEF and a whole raft of other things that go against the MSM but are mostly true.  If there are accusations to be answered, it should be done through the police and the courts.

There could be a lot of truth in that last paragraph.

[Penelope]

2 hours ago, Rewulf said:

Exactly.

 

Agreed.....

But, Ill give my probably unpopular take on the latest allegations.
First of all , I do believe this is a smear campaign, Brand has become rather popular on his Youtube channel, a channel that regularly attacks the mainstream media, politicians and the like.
His pieces on Ukraine for instance, have been hard hitting, and are backed up with evidence, so he has to be 'stopped' or 'cancelled' as its known these days, he knew it was coming, and its fair to say , one way to do this is using the Metoo style of accusing someone of completely unprovable and often anonymous sex crimes.
Not one of these women have gone to the police, now or then.

This kind of media assassination is very common these days , when social media can quickly spread this type of gossip, and claims that will NEVER be heard in court, but the subjects reputation will be forever tarnished because of it.

For the record, and Ive stated this before, as a person , I dont like Brand as a person, even his new 'mellow' persona comes across as arrogant.
However, this does not mean that he doesnt tell the truth as he sees it.
The truth that some in power find highly embarrassing.

There are plenty of people on social media , who now refer to him as a nonce, due to his relationship with a 16 year old girl when he was 31, as unsavoury as that might sound , this was a 6 month consensual relationship within the law, but mud sticks.
Brand has 'had' a lot of women, yet Channel 4 managed to find a handful of them who would 'testify' anonymously that hes a 'wrong un' and various other 5 minutes of fame grabbers will say on camera that they had 'heard' he was a predatory sex pest, one of them was literally wheeled out on stage, a 'celebrity' comedian (who Ive never heard of ) Daniel Sloss>
Now Daniel had evidence because he 'heard' Brand was a bad man from some women he knew....
And to back up his claims , he knows about these things because he had a friend who was raped, and he beats himself up about it because didnt prevent it happening ?
He was also groomed 'online' 20 years ago, when if you had internet , it was a dial up connection, there were no smart phones, and social media didnt exist until 5 years later, but hey , if he says he was groomed online , it must have happened right ?
He also uses these fascinating stories in his comedy stage routine.

The Metoo movement is a powerful tool to remove those who speak out, or drift from the MSM storyline.
Theres a long list of victims, some deserving , some not so deserving.
Whether Brand has done wrong or not , it should be determind by factual evidence, not a media kangeroo court, who have little morality anyway.
Lets just be aware of that.

This.

1 hour ago, Fargo said:

It’s the same tactics used against Andrew Tate. 
 

And this.

42 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

If it is , then literally anyone can be taken down if the powers that be , don't like what you are saying ?

Still a little way off for Joe Public, but coming, for sure.

[JohnfromUK]

4 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

What evidence ?

If there is to be a court case - there will need to be evidence.  IF people are making false accusations - they should be in the dock.

If they can't come up with any - he can (if he wants) take the people who have made unsubstantiated claims to court. 

Celebrity has big upsides (wealth, media power, influence) but it also has downsides - and vulnerability to past mistakes is one of them.

9 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

therefore the CPS would have a tough time proceeding with a case.

They did it in a number of cases - e.g. Max Clifford, Rolf Harris etc.

I'm not holding my breath either way, but just as his 'celebrity' makes him vulnerable to 'trial by media', it also doesn't mean that he should get away (IF he has done anything wrong) untried in a proper court.

[welsh1]

29 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

 

What evidence ?
Trust me , in the unlikely event a crime does get reported 10-15 years after it allegedly happened, the fact that they went on TV first , anonymously , seriously impedes any fair trial, therefore the CPS would have a tough time proceeding with a case.
But that was never the intention.

2012

A woman alleges that Brand raped her against a wall at his Los Angeles home in July 2012 after she refused to join him in sexual activity with “a friend” of Brand. She alleges that she told Brand to get off her and that she wanted to leave, but he carried on and briefly blocked the door to prevent her from leaving afterwards.

She told the Sunday Times she was treated at a Rape Treatment Centre that same day, and had therapy treatment there for five months. Records seen by the Sunday Times show she contemplated criminal or civil proceedings but ultimately decided against it.

After the incident, Brand sent her text messages apologising for what happened and describing his behaviour as “crazy and selfish”. It happened the same month that Brand’s divorce from the singer Katy Perry was finalised.

[Spr1985]

I’ve found reading this thread rather amusing. Some of the views hilarious and some very much of a lynch mob mentality. 
 

I'm not a fan of brand, but still I can acknowledge his intelligence and his appeal to many. 
 

predator 🤣 hardly! Taking advantage of people throwing themselves at you does not make you a predator. Morally imbalanced, maybe. But, that would purely be based on other people’s opinions. My opinion would be that anyone that believes him having multiple encounters sometimes with multiple people as being predatory or morally wrong are just jealous of his escapades. He’s never tried to hide (in his own words) his promiscuity, in fact he’s always been very open about it…..and still is. 
 

id be interested to know how many of you can honestly say that in your prime you’d have turned down a couple of very good looking members of your prefered sex throwing themselves at you? 
 

as has been mentioned above brand is very outspoken against various groups/ organisations/ and what’s going on in the world currently and we all know “they” don’t like it when that happens and even less so when it’s gaining momentum…. So agreeing with someone above it stinks of smear campaign and cancel culture to me. 
 

I’ll be interested to see how this progresses in the legal system. 

[Gordon R]

Brand is open about his promiscuity, but he isn't being accused of that. He stands accused of rape.

As Ditchman says - he is toast.

Some years ago, Mungler advised against suing for libel or slander, because it could get messy and no-one really wins. It's a can of worms Brand might not wish to open.

Brand, on the face of it, seems to be a reformed character, so why this sudden interest in his past? It sounds far fetched to blame his You Tube  offerings, but it is one credible explanation.

P.S. - someone has now gone to the Police.

 

Edited September 18, 2023 by Gordon R

[Rewulf]

40 minutes ago, welsh1 said:

A woman alleges that Brand raped her against a wall*snip*

Im sorry, but thats not evidence , its an allegation.
She went to a rape crisis centre ? Did she name her attacker on any documentation ?
She had a text message from Brand ? Does she still have it ?

I could make an allegation against him myself, saying he did this or that to me in 2000 and whatever, say I went for therapy for it , but ultimately didnt report it , but now all these women are coming forward.....

How would I PROVE I didnt just make it all up (which I did)
Ultimately , he might be everything they say and more, but without some kind of corroborating evidence, is this the standard for a sexual assault conviction ?

This article sums up the MSM attitude to it, he MUST be guilty , because someone said so, and if you dont believe it , theres something wrong with you.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-naive-cynicism-of-russell-brands-hasty-defenders/

25 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

P.S. - someone has now gone to the Police.

Dont worry , therell be plenty more, women and men  who likely never met him.

[welsh1]

30 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Im sorry, but thats not evidence , its an allegation.
She went to a rape crisis centre ? Did she name her attacker on any documentation ?
She had a text message from Brand ? Does she still have it ?

I could make an allegation against him myself, saying he did this or that to me in 2000 and whatever, say I went for therapy for it , but ultimately didnt report it , but now all these women are coming forward.....

How would I PROVE I didnt just make it all up (which I did)
Ultimately , he might be everything they say and more, but without some kind of corroborating evidence, is this the standard for a sexual assault conviction ?

This article sums up the MSM attitude to it, he MUST be guilty , because someone said so, and if you dont believe it , theres something wrong with you.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-naive-cynicism-of-russell-brands-hasty-defenders/

Dont worry , therell be plenty more, women and men  who likely never met him.

Yes she does and it was shown on the dispatches programme.

[Rewulf]

Just now, welsh1 said:

Yes she does and it was shown on the dispatches programme.

Cool, shes got the strongest case of the lot then.
If she does decide to pursue it now that is.

[serrac]

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

Cool, shes got the strongest case of the lot then.
If she does decide to pursue it now that is.

Where exactly is that part that proves he raped her?

[Jega]

On a slightly different tangent to this thread .

I was quite taken aback by a report on tonight's 6 0'clock news ,when the reporter lady said that  there were multiple news agencies " investigating Brand and the alleged historic assaults he committed ". Now i was always under the impression that the Police were the one's to investigate anything like this and the various news agencies reported the outcome of these investigations . Sincerely hope they don't do anything that would jepordise the Police's work and any subsequent legal action's .  

[welsh1]

1 minute ago, Jega said:

On a slightly different tangent to this thread .

I was quite taken aback by a report on tonight's 6 0'clock news ,when the reporter lady said that  there were multiple news agencies " investigating Brand and the alleged historic assaults he committed ". Now i was always under the impression that the Police were the one's to investigate anything like this and the various news agencies reported the outcome of these investigations . Sincerely hope they don't do anything that would jepordise the Police's work and any subsequent legal action's .  

What do you think an investigative journalist does?
Usually they break a story and the police then investigate, think Nixon in the usa.

This is in the news because of a joint investigation by channel 4 , the Times and the Sunday Times.

[Jega]

Just now, welsh1 said:

What do you think an investigative journalist does?
Usually they break a story and the police then investigate, think Nixon in the usa.

This is in the news because of a joint investigation by channel 4 , the Times and the Sunday Times.

Point taken buddy ,but i still think that as soon as any sort of crime comes to the surface they should hand it over to the Police .

[Duckandswing]

I’ve gone off the man even more. I read a news article today providing extracts from his (auto)biographies. The man is grotesque, in his attitude and his language.

[Cosmicblue]

On 17/09/2023 at 18:20, old man said:

The switch off for me happened after the Brand and Ross incident.

Me too. Despicable trick. 

[ditchman]

i think Brand looks like Rasputin....he was a wrongen...and came to a very sticky end..

[Rewulf]

This is a letter that has been sent to all social media platforms Russel Brand may be involved in, from HM Gov.
Draw your own conclusions from this.

[Penelope]

6 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

This is a letter that has been sent to all social media platforms Russel Brand may be involved in, from HM Gov.
Draw your own conclusions from this.

The cancelling is well underway.

[Rewulf]

3 minutes ago, Penelope said:

The cancelling is well underway.

No evidence , no police interview, no charges, no prosecution, and no conviction.
Yet we have a conclusion from HM government that Brand must be de monetised , and effectively cancelled.
Welcome to the new reality.

[Dougy]

5 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

No evidence , no police interview, no charges, no prosecution, and no conviction.
Yet we have a conclusion from HM government that Brand must be de monetised , and effectively cancelled.
Welcome to the new reality.

No doubt he has a right to appeal, and if successful claim a bit of compo. 

[Rewulf]

3 minutes ago, Dougy said:

No doubt he has a right to appeal, and if successful claim a bit of compo. 

Against who ?
Social media de monetise people all the time, usually if they dont like what youre saying.
When all they have to do is just remove the 'offending' video.
But demonetisation works far better, as they dont have to pay them for any hits at all, on any video.

 

[Rewulf]

This video explains why Caroline Dinenage has probably caused herself far more trouble than she bargained on.

 

[JohnfromUK]

45 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Yet we have a conclusion from HM government

The Culture Media and Sport Committee is a Committee of the House of Commons (all party) and is NOT a part of Government.

It is in fact their responsibility to scrutinise the work of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.