Russell Brand

[Mikey1874]

Google respond

 

 

[JFK-1]

10 hours ago, Lone Striker said:

Brand looks increasingly  likely to be Savile mark 2.   Except this time, the law will hopefully nail him while he's still alive.

 

At this stage it's difficult to say what might emerge from it, but after having watched dispatches the 16 year old girl incident appears almost certainly genuine, and while that's not illegal it was highly inappropriate and creepy and abusive. Very Savile like.

 

Savile used to do things like undress right down to his underwear in front of female staff anywhere he might be, an office someplace to change clothing. These women/girls don't know him. 

 

That's inappropriate behaviour but he carried out that and a lot more simply to normalise it, anything inappropriate he does, it's just Jim, that's just the way he is. As if people should just accept that level of inappropriate behaviour.

 

This is who/what Brand is, the 16 year old wasn't a one off, there may be a Savile like deluge incoming.

[hughesie27]

3 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

Google respond

 

 

This is the sort of thing that doesn't sit quite right with me. I'm sure he can live without the money and will probably be able to find an alternative way of making cash but if these accusations are put forward against the average joe then they can't.

[Mikey1874]

[Vansen]

12 hours ago, Greedy Jambo said:

You should see the amount of Red letters I get through the door for not buying a TV Licence. 

They may as well just say RAPE on them. 

 

Its not entirely clear but are you suggesting that you feel accused, as a man, as being a potential rapist? That Brand is being accused because he is well known, wealthy and is a man? Or that you are next?

 

A man like Brand pushes boundaries until they no longer exist. You can see this in his 'comedy' and in his private life. 

 

Of the thousand(s) of women he admits to having sex with its entirely credible that a very small selection were non consensual or started consensual and ended up non consensual because of his behaviour. 

 

What is clear to me is that there is a pattern of behaviour towards women that places his needs, his gratification above all else and that he views women as available, disposable, and to be spat on, literally. 

 

Like everyone else I don't know if he raped or sexually abused any of the women. But his behaviour leads me to believe its credible. When he posted his 'vehement' denial online one thing struck me as strange. 

 

He moved VERY quickly from denying the accusations to blaming it on the mainstream media and others trying to take him down and silence him. 

 

That was someone pandering to his core audience who would believe that shit. 

 

Now the veil has been pulled back I fully expect more revelations to come out. 

[indianajones]

52 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

Google respond

 

 

 

45 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

This is the sort of thing that doesn't sit quite right with me. I'm sure he can live without the money and will probably be able to find an alternative way of making cash but if these accusations are put forward against the average joe then they can't.

 

That statement is wild from Google. They are absolutely full of shit. 

 

[I P Knightley]

56 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

Google respond

 

 

In my earlier discussions, I've tried to be clear that I don't see anything wrong in any of us coming to a conclusion that he definitely did it.

 

However, penalising him on the back of that is a dangerous road to go down. For sure, YouTube should be seen to be acting responsibly but there's a difference between the dangerous bollocks he's spouted on YT (I've never seen it, so it could all be mild, pleasant and whimsical but commentary suggests otherwise) and committing acts of sexual assault. So those goons have just been judge & jury (that's fine) and also executioner. 

 

It's not as if YouTube is squeaky clean when it comes to what it allows on the platform. This seems just like showboating. 

[Mikey1874]

 

[indianajones]

3 minutes ago, I P Knightley said:

In my earlier discussions, I've tried to be clear that I don't see anything wrong in any of us coming to a conclusion that he definitely did it.

 

However, penalising him on the back of that is a dangerous road to go down. For sure, YouTube should be seen to be acting responsibly but there's a difference between the dangerous bollocks he's spouted on YT (I've never seen it, so it could all be mild, pleasant and whimsical but commentary suggests otherwise) and committing acts of sexual assault. So those goons have just been judge & jury (that's fine) and also executioner. 

 

It's not as if YouTube is squeaky clean when it comes to what it allows on the platform. This seems just like showboating. 

 

It seems like virtue signalling at the earliest chance. 

[I P Knightley]

1 minute ago, indianajones said:

 

It seems like virtue signalling at the earliest chance. 

That's the phrase I was looking for!

 

Like all those people who frown when I play I'm The Leader of the Gang by Gary Glitter. You know they're fighting hard to stop themselves from punching the air during the "Come On, Come On!" parts. 

(I've only been playing it since his release; not when he was actually doing time.)

[Unknown user]

6 minutes ago, I P Knightley said:

In my earlier discussions, I've tried to be clear that I don't see anything wrong in any of us coming to a conclusion that he definitely did it.

 

However, penalising him on the back of that is a dangerous road to go down. For sure, YouTube should be seen to be acting responsibly but there's a difference between the dangerous bollocks he's spouted on YT (I've never seen it, so it could all be mild, pleasant and whimsical but commentary suggests otherwise) and committing acts of sexual assault. So those goons have just been judge & jury (that's fine) and also executioner. 

 

It's not as if YouTube is squeaky clean when it comes to what it allows on the platform. This seems just like showboating. 

 

The other side of this is that YouTube can do what they like with monetisation. They use it as motivation for content creators, and if they no longer feel like motivating someone, it's their call.

 

They're undoubtedly virtue signalling, they don't want to be caught in the crossfire, but that's their prerogative.

[I P Knightley]

6 minutes ago, ǝǝɥʇᴉɯS said:

 

The other side of this is that YouTube can do what they like with monetisation. They use it as motivation for content creators, and if they no longer feel like motivating someone, it's their call.

 

They're undoubtedly virtue signalling, they don't want to be caught in the crossfire, but that's their prerogative.

I don't understand the monetisation model for YouTube and other social media platforms and guess there's all sorts of clauses and loopholes but it doesn't seem right that they allowed all his nonsense content for however long but pull the financial deal based on allegations, however convincing.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

30 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

let me guess…

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

2 hours ago, cazzyy said:

 

I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse but when someone (the Daily Star) has to pay substantial damages for suggesting someone did something then it's fair to say that that person is not suspected of doing that something.

You said it hadn't been reported, I said it had, and provided the link that confirmed it. You then acknowledged that, then went off on a tangent.

 

I hope that clears up who is being obtuse. Good day to you, and please don't respond.

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

2 hours ago, Cade said:

 

Shame that Teresea May "lost" the MP/Lords sex abuse dossier which was handed to her when she was Home Secretary.....

 

She claimed the worst thing she ever did was to walk through a field.

She must have forgotten about protecting the nonces. Bible bashing witch.

 

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

Barrymore backing Brand

 

Who next, Josef Fritzel?

 

 

[Cade]

[Spellczech]

16 hours ago, doctor jambo said:

There is a pattern of behaviour

You can look at it, at what he admits , what he has done , what people have seen and heard.

What othe comedians saw and said.

there is enough for me to satisfy myself

Defence lawyers are very skilled at muddying the waters when only circumstantial evidence is put forward...

[cazzyy]

58 minutes ago, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said:

You said it hadn't been reported, I said it had, and provided the link that confirmed it. You then acknowledged that, then went off on a tangent.

 

I hope that clears up who is being obtuse. Good day to you, and please don't respond.

 

That's not really what happened though.

 

Oh and I'll respond when and to who I like, you're welcome to ignore such posts.

[Armageddon]

51 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

Barrymore backing Brand

 

Who next, Josef Fritzel?

 

 

 

Jeffrey Dahmer was asked for his thoughts on the scandal, his reply "I could never stomach Russell Brand"

[Guest]

Such a shame it's came to this. I used to enjoy him doing the horoscopes on tv.am

 

Didn't think he was like that.

[That thing you do]

3 hours ago, hughesie27 said:

This is the sort of thing that doesn't sit quite right with me. I'm sure he can live without the money and will probably be able to find an alternative way of making cash but if these accusations are put forward against the average joe then they can't.

Yep. No charges yet but cancelled anyway doesnt sit right with me either. Bandwagon jumping due to media sensationalism.

 

If Brand is charged and taken to court, fair trial out the window. If hes not, he's cancelled anyway.

 

 

[Ray Gin]

3 hours ago, JFK-1 said:

 

At this stage it's difficult to say what might emerge from it, but after having watched dispatches the 16 year old girl incident appears almost certainly genuine, and while that's not illegal it was highly inappropriate and creepy and abusive. Very Savile like.

 

Savile used to do things like undress right down to his underwear in front of female staff anywhere he might be, an office someplace to change clothing. These women/girls don't know him. 

 

That's inappropriate behaviour but he carried out that and a lot more simply to normalise it, anything inappropriate he does, it's just Jim, that's just the way he is. As if people should just accept that level of inappropriate behaviour.

 

This is who/what Brand is, the 16 year old wasn't a one off, there may be a Savile like deluge incoming.

 

 

As long as he says some negative stuff about vaccines he's a hero to some kickbackers, whether he grooms 16 year olds or not.

 

 

 

[Guest]

.

Edited September 19, 2023 by Black Swan

[That thing you do]

2 hours ago, I P Knightley said:

That's the phrase I was looking for!

 

Like all those people who frown when I play I'm The Leader of the Gang by Gary Glitter. You know they're fighting hard to stop themselves from punching the air during the "Come On, Come On!" parts. 

(I've only been playing it since his release; not when he was actually doing time.)

Still upset enjoying Another Rock and Roll Christmas (was one of my favorites) gets me dirty looks. I can separate an annoying yet catchy song as a work of art from the person the artist is.

 

Case in point, I went to Bali in 2017 and bought Art from Kerobakan jail. Doesn't mean I condone drug smuggling.

Edited September 19, 2023 by That thing you do

[hughesie27]

39 minutes ago, That thing you do said:

Yep. No charges yet but cancelled anyway doesnt sit right with me either. Bandwagon jumping due to media sensationalism.

 

If Brand is charged and taken to court, fair trial out the window. If hes not, he's cancelled anyway.

 

 

Wouldn't say fair trial out the window. Johnny Depp was basically cancelled before his case with Amber Heard.

[Unknown user]

Just now, hughesie27 said:

Wouldn't say fair trial out the window. Johnny Depp was basically cancelled before his case with Amber Heard.

Spacey won his case too.

 

 

[GBJambo]

Has he been found guilty yet? 🤷‍♂️

Or is it a case of guilty until proven innocent 

[XB52]

1 hour ago, Ray Gin said:

 

 

As long as he says some negative stuff about vaccines he's a hero to some kickbackers, whether he grooms 16 year olds or not.

 

 

 

Sadly that is true

[doctor jambo]

5 minutes ago, GBJambo said:

Has he been found guilty yet? 🤷‍♂️

Or is it a case of guilty until proven innocent 

If it’s not true he can sue.

depp did and was reinstated in his career and won damages.

He has the means to litigate - that is open to him, so his situation is different to joe public

[That thing you do]

55 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

Wouldn't say fair trial out the window. Johnny Depp was basically cancelled before his case with Amber Heard.

Yeah, it calls it into question though. Which if he is guilty is the last thing anyone wants is wiggle room caused by the media

[Des Lynam]

I can’t stand him but this media witch-hunt is unsettling. Hopefully the police get involved and investigate this properly. 

[Ray Gin]

7 minutes ago, Des Lynam said:

I can’t stand him but this media witch-hunt is unsettling. Hopefully the police get involved and investigate this properly. 

 

The police are now involved

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/18/russell-brand-met-police-alleged-sexual-assault-2003/

[I P Knightley]

3 hours ago, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said:

She claimed the worst thing she ever did was to walk through a field.

She must have forgotten about protecting the nonces. Bible bashing witch.

 

I didn't realise that she's a God-Squadder. 

 

At least she's not at the level of many American politicians in that regard.

 

1 hour ago, That thing you do said:

Still upset enjoying Another Rock and Roll Christmas (was one of my favorites) gets me dirty looks. I can separate an annoying yet catchy song as a work of art from the person the artist is.

 

Case in point, I went to Bali in 2017 and bought Art from Kerobakan jail. Doesn't mean I condone drug smuggling.

I have to slightly amend my earlier comment that I only played GG once he was out of chokey. My Christmas playlist includes that beezer as well as 6 White Boomers by Rolf Harris but not Chris de Burgh. 

[All roads lead to Gorgie]

There has to be a fair trial to sort this for the good of everyone. Even if technically what he did was legal his behaviour towards women was abhorrent, both sleezy, perverted and showing a disdain for their welfare, using his fame to lure many too awestruck to resist.

The evidence has to be watertight and I tend to think that will be the case.

[Byyy The Light]

23 minutes ago, All roads lead to Gorgie said:

There has to be a fair trial to sort this for the good of everyone. Even if technically what he did was legal his behaviour towards women was abhorrent, both sleezy, perverted and showing a disdain for their welfare, using his fame to lure many too awestruck to resist.

The evidence has to be watertight and I tend to think that will be the case.

 

How would a fair trial sort this out?

[Lone Striker]

4 hours ago, I P Knightley said:

I don't understand the monetisation model for YouTube and other social media platforms and guess there's all sorts of clauses and loopholes but it doesn't seem right that they allowed all his nonsense content for however long but pull the financial deal based on allegations, however convincing.

Its quite simple really.   The currency is "number of views per day" and "number of subscribers/followers".   The more of these  a channel owner has, the more advertisers scramble to get their products advertised during the owner's videos.  The owner shares that income with YT.

 

To get more views & subscribers, you  just have to produce increasingly "interesting" content.   As we've seen with Trump, it doesn't have to be accurate or even  truthful. Opinions and conspiracy theories will do, especially when its a celeb spouting them.   

 

Once a YT  channel owner starts getting associated with negative stuff  verging on illegality, YT itself won't want to be associated with him, so their initial response is to restrict the ability of the owner to make money from advertising.   The paradox is bad publicity for a marmite character like RB would probably increase the number of viewers he'd  get which would normally increase his  income from advertisers.

 

Conclusion - it would appear there are hundreds of millions of  folk  across the globe with nothing better to do than watch sh1t on social meeja.  Sign of the times, I guess.

 

 

 

[All roads lead to Gorgie]

16 minutes ago, Byyy The Light said:

 

How would a fair trial sort this out?

I don't know what you are questioning. It's simple, if he is guilty of the allegations he goes to jail, if not he is free to carry on doing what he does now.

[Placid Casual]

49 minutes ago, All roads lead to Gorgie said:

There has to be a fair trial to sort this for the good of everyone. Even if technically what he did was legal his behaviour towards women was abhorrent, both sleezy, perverted and showing a disdain for their welfare, using his fame to lure many too awestruck to resist.

The evidence has to be watertight and I tend to think that will be the case.

The alleged rape in LA though, for which it is reported that there is evidence that collaborates it? And that the alleged victim went to a rape crisis centre the next day, receiving treatment for several weeks.

 

Remains to be seen if this will be reported to the police there.

 

 

[All roads lead to Gorgie]

2 minutes ago, Placid Casual said:

The alleged rape in LA though, for which it is reported that there is evidence that collaborates it? And that the alleged victim went to a rape crisis centre the next day, receiving treatment for several weeks.

 

Remains to be seen if this will be reported to the police there.

 

 

It certainly should be reported and he should stand up in court if there collaborated evidence to go with it.

[Byyy The Light]

33 minutes ago, All roads lead to Gorgie said:

I don't know what you are questioning. It's simple, if he is guilty of the allegations he goes to jail, if not he is free to carry on doing what he does now.

 

The criminal allegations, should they come to pass, obviously. The worrying bit for me is he seems to be getting cancelled for behaviour that people find distasteful.  All of the stuff you listed just confirms what most people thought anyway.  He is a horrible, creepy pervert who used his fame to exploit people and get what he wanted. That stuff can't be put on trial.

 

To be 100% clear, this isn't a defence of Brand.  Like others I find these situations uncomfortable as I feel they cross the line in what is made public and the basis of law.  I felt the same with Schofield, Huw Edwards, Spacey, Depp situations.  Even look at Goodwillie, the whole thing is a mess, these types of situations are so nuanced and complex.

 

A sibling of a friend of mine, also recently had his name dragged through the papers, suspended from his job, 18 months of hell waiting for something to come to court that was chucked out after 1 day when the star witness crumbled and admitted she was put up to telling lies.  Whole thing was fabricated and the person who the allegations were made against has had their relationships, career, reputation etc ruined.  The accuser remains anonymous.  Subsequently it has come out that it wasn't the first time they'd done this to someone.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 19, 2023 by Byyy The Light

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

1 hour ago, I P Knightley said:

I didn't realise that she's a God-Squadder. 

 

At least she's not at the level of many American politicians in that regard.

 

I have to slightly amend my earlier comment that I only played GG once he was out of chokey. My Christmas playlist includes that beezer as well as 6 White Boomers by Rolf Harris but not Chris de Burgh. 

She's a vicar's daughter, and won't have become Tory leader, let alone PM, by being an atheist.

[the posh bit]

3 minutes ago, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said:

She's a vicar's daughter, and won't have become Tory leader, let alone PM, by being an atheist.

 

At that time, maybe. Not sure about now. 

[Placid Casual]

2 minutes ago, Byyy The Light said:

The criminal allegations, should they come to pass, obviously. The worrying bit for me is he seems to be getting cancelled for behaviour that people find distasteful.  All of the stuff you listed just confirms what most people thought anyway.  He is a horrible, creepy pervert who used his fame to exploit people and get what he wanted. That stuff can't be put on trial.

 

To be 100% clear, this isn't a defence of Brand.  Like others I find these situations uncomfortable as I feel they cross the line in what is made public and the basis of law.  I felt the same with Schofield, Huw Edwards, Spacey, Depp situations.  Even look at Goodwillie, the whole thing is a mess, these types of situations are so nuanced and complex.

 

A sibling of a friend of mine, also recently had his name dragged through the papers, suspended from his job, 18 months of hell waiting for something to come to court that was chucked out after 1 day when the star witnessed crumbled and admitted she was put up to telling lies.  Whole thing was fabricated and the person who the allegations were made against has had their relationships, career, reputation etc ruined.  The accuser remains anonymous.  Subsequently it has come out that it wasn't the first time they'd done this to someone.

The alleged rape in LA can be put on trial?

 

That’s awful about your friend’s sibling. Is the accuser not being charged herself? Certainly should be.

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

7 minutes ago, the posh bit said:

 

At that time, maybe. Not sure about now. 

Is the PM not there to do the leader of the Church of England's day to day job?

[the posh bit]

8 minutes ago, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said:

Is the PM not there to do the leader of the Church of England's day to day job?

 

Pretty sure the PM advises the monarchy on CoE appointments. Pretty sure Old Liz paid immense value to Johnson's advice, mind. 

 

Also pretty sure the current PM is a Hindu? 

Edited September 19, 2023 by the posh bit

[Byyy The Light]

5 minutes ago, Placid Casual said:

The alleged rape in LA can be put on trial?

 

That’s awful about your friend’s sibling. Is the accuser not being charged herself? Certainly should be.

 

That's what I meant by the first sentence.  The rape allegation is clear criminality but there is a hell of a lot of stuff been put in amongst it all that is **** behaviour but not illegal.  You can obviously use these things to create evidence of a pattern of behaviour but it doesn't mean automatically he's guilty of criminality and vice versa.

 

Re the other situation, bit of a touchy subject so I don't ask unless they bring it up.  There haven't been any charges against her that I'm aware of.  He got in a short term relationship with someone who he then split up with and she made allegations that he was inappropriate with her teenage daughter.  Just a spiteful cow.

 

 

[Placid Casual]

12 minutes ago, Byyy The Light said:

That's what I meant by the first sentence. The rape allegation is clear criminality but there is a hell of a lot of stuff been put in amongst it all that is **** behaviour but not illegal.  You can obviously use these things to create evidence of a pattern of behaviour but it doesn't mean automatically he's guilty of criminality and vice versa.

 

Re the other situation, bit of a touchy subject so I don't ask unless they bring it up.  There haven't been any charges against her that I'm aware of.  He got in a short term relationship with someone who he then split up with and she made allegations that he was inappropriate with her teenage daughter.  Just a spiteful cow.

Ah, apologies, my mistake.

 

Re: Your friend’s sibling. Yes, it’s really twisted what the accuser carried out. I hope there is some kind of justice.

 

Edited September 19, 2023 by Placid Casual

[All roads lead to Gorgie]

18 minutes ago, Byyy The Light said:

 

The criminal allegations, should they come to pass, obviously. The worrying bit for me is he seems to be getting cancelled for behaviour that people find distasteful.  All of the stuff you listed just confirms what most people thought anyway.  He is a horrible, creepy pervert who used his fame to exploit people and get what he wanted. That stuff can't be put on trial.

 

To be 100% clear, this isn't a defence of Brand.  Like others I find these situations uncomfortable as I feel they cross the line in what is made public and the basis of law.  I felt the same with Schofield, Huw Edwards, Spacey, Depp situations.  Even look at Goodwillie, the whole thing is a mess, these types of situations are so nuanced and complex.

 

A sibling of a friend of mine, also recently had his name dragged through the papers, suspended from his job, 18 months of hell waiting for something to come to court that was chucked out after 1 day when the star witness crumbled and admitted she was put up to telling lies.  Whole thing was fabricated and the person who the allegations were made against has had their relationships, career, reputation etc ruined.  The accuser remains anonymous.  Subsequently it has come out that it wasn't the first time they'd done this to someone.

 

 

 

 

I do agree that it would be better if alleged crimes involving sexual assault were kept private until it goes to court and a verdict agreed. I think the TV documentary was good though as it exposed the turn a blind eye attitude of program makers if the star of their show is racking in the money for them but behaving like a sexual predator on and off stage. 

[Byyy The Light]

3 minutes ago, Placid Casual said:

Ah, apologies, my mistake.

 

Yes, it’s really twisted what the accuser carried out. I hope there is some kind of justice.

 

I doubt there will be.  Guess it might make people who have genuine allegations more reluctant to come forward if they thought there was a chance they could get charged with making it up.  No idea what the answer is, very complex trying to balance everyone's rights.