Russell Brand

[EH11_2NL]

One of the most unfunny comedians ever. 

[Ray Gin]

15 hours ago, periodictabledancer said:

Sure but the idea that he became this alt-right loon in order to paint the allegations as a  MSM/establishment conspiracy againt him is interesting. I never could stand him but I was amazed to see he'd gone to the dark side - and this explains his conversion IMO. 

 

A quick look on twitter today and all the conspiracy right-wing goons are lining up to say they stand with him. He found an audience he could manipulate and played a blinder.

 

[lou]

12 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

A quick look on twitter today and all the conspiracy right-wing goons are lining up to say they stand with him. He found an audience he could manipulate and played a blinder.

 

So transparent, knew this was coming and got the Gammons onboard 

[Ray Gin]

No coincidence his shift started around the time of the Me Too movement.

[the posh bit]

1 hour ago, ǝǝɥʇᴉɯS said:

 

That's right, sniggering along, the prick.

 

Ross did much more than just snigger, he screamed down the line that Brand had ****ed his granddaughter, it was disgusting. 

[I P Knightley]

23 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

A quick look on twitter today and all the conspiracy right-wing goons are lining up to say they stand with him. He found an audience he could manipulate and played a blinder.

 

Yup. Having Tucker Carlson, Andrew Tate and Laurence Fox fight your corner isn't a great look.

[Sooperstar]

2 hours ago, Tazio said:

The age of consent is 16 because 16 year olds will have sex with each other, it isn’t so men can have sex with girls many years younger than them. Of course legally they can but it’s thoroughly unsavoury. 

I might be making this up but aren't there countries where there is an age of consent but with an upper age limit also applied, then a second unrestricted age of consent? 

[Korky]

56 minutes ago, EH11_2NL said:

One of the most unfunny comedians ever. 

He’s ‘edgy’ apparently!

 

[the posh bit]

[Cameronstheman]

2 hours ago, periodictabledancer said:

You don't agree these women have a right to be heard ? 

What, when i have i said that ??

 

What a ridiculous reply

[Luckies1874]

3 hours ago, Spellczech said:

As I've previously written on here - I lost faith in the legal profession when I was doing a law degree. Justice is talked about as an incidental matter. The real focus is arguing coherently and winning the argument. Everything else like victims, punishments, recidivism, criminality, mitigation & justice are side-factors. They are merely incidentals to support the argument and help get the "win".

 

Have you read the The Secret Barrister?

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_Barrister

[periodictabledancer]

1 hour ago, Sooperstar said:

I might be making this up but aren't there countries where there is an age of consent but with an upper age limit also applied, then a second unrestricted age of consent? 

Many countries don't criminalise under age sex between people of the same age group (ie where both under 16).

The USA has the statutory rape felony where one of the parties is of adult age but not many others follow that line. 

[periodictabledancer]

5 minutes ago, Cameronstheman said:

What, when i have i said that ??

 

What a ridiculous reply

Ridiculous ?

This is what I read from you - "If he aint been charged, whys his name out for all to see  ??, that seems harsh". 

 

So how can it be "harsh" if you believe the women in question have a right to heard ? 

[I P Knightley]

3 hours ago, Spellczech said:

As I've previously written on here - I lost faith in the legal profession when I was doing a law degree. Justice is talked about as an incidental matter. The real focus is arguing coherently and winning the argument. Everything else like victims, punishments, recidivism, criminality, mitigation & justice are side-factors. They are merely incidentals to support the argument and help get the "win".

I can really only speak for my own case and observe that I think the CPS were pissed off that they had to deal with it, even though the police had it as a slam-dunk.

 

As you've guessed, the defence team created an 'argument' which would have been laughed out in any pub conversation, let alone a court if the scales of justice were evenly weighted. But my feeling is that the defence have put together a ludicrous argument knowing that the CPS can't be arsed looking into it an building a counter.

 

I'm trying not to derail the conversation into "boo-hoo, poor me" but saying that if the CPS treat other victims and their cases in a similar way, it's no surprise that victims can't be bothered pursuing justice.

 

I noticed a tweet from the Victims' Commissioner asking for others who've been affected by issues raised by the Brand stories to contact them. From what I've seen, the Victims Commissioner seems to be making good efforts to change the attitude of the CPS.

Edited September 17, 2023 by I P Knightley

[Luckies1874]

1 minute ago, I P Knightley said:

I can really only speak for my own case and observe that I think the CPS were pissed off that they had to deal with it, even though the police had it as a slam-dunk.

 

As you've guessed, the defence team created an 'argument' which would have been laughed out in any pub conversation, let alone a court if the scales of justice were evenly weighted. But my feeling is that the defence have put together a ludicrous argument knowing that the CPS can't be arsed looking into it an building a counter.

 

I'm trying not to derail the conversation into "boo-hoo, poor me" but saying that if the CPS treat other victims and their cases in a similar way, it's no surprise that victims can't be bothered pursuing justice.

 

Has there been a suggestion that any of these woman have pursued a complaint and been rebuffed?  I have not read extensively about it but it was my impression is that the Police had never been contacted and that most if not all had requested anonymity for the released programme.

[Lone Striker]

3 hours ago, Life Aquatic said:

Not at all, I just can't understand how the police can bring forward a case with the reasonable expectation of success in these situations when the evidence amounts to "She said... She alleges... She claims..."

 

It would not be too difficult for a good legal team to deal with. 

 

Yet these stories often come forward regardless. Like they know they won't get a conviction but trial by public opinion will do.

A lot will depend on how many witnesses they can find who can actually testify about having seen Brand and woman X around the date/time of an alleged assault. Plus friends of woman X who can testify about anything she said around that time, and changes in behaviour afterwards.   Hard evidence like plane bookings, car hire, security CCTV etc too.  

 

For every good defence legal team, there's usually an equally good prosecution team who'll do thorough  homework & forensic investigation before  agreeing to bring the prosecution.

 

On a wider note,  the numbers of women coming forward in general now to make complaints about sex assaults within various workplaces going back many years is both encouraging and alarming at the same time.       Young  boys viewing porn on their phones and  thinking  it reflects real-life male entitlement grow up with warped beliefs about sex and women.   

 

Does the gay version of this result in increasing assaults too @JudyJudyJudy

 

[periodictabledancer]

10 minutes ago, I P Knightley said:

I can really only speak for my own case and observe that I think the CPS were pissed off that they had to deal with it, even though the police had it as a slam-dunk.

 

As you've guessed, the defence team created an 'argument' which would have been laughed out in any pub conversation, let alone a court if the scales of justice were evenly weighted. But my feeling is that the defence have put together a ludicrous argument knowing that the CPS can't be arsed looking into it an building a counter.

 

I'm trying not to derail the conversation into "boo-hoo, poor me" but saying that if the CPS treat other victims and their cases in a similar way, it's no surprise that victims can't be bothered pursuing justice.

 

I noticed a tweet from the Victims' Commissioner asking for others who've been affected by issues raised by the Brand stories to contact them. From what I've seen, the Victims Commissioner seems to be making good efforts to change the attitude of the CPS.

There's been numerous complaints quite recently from alleged rape victims saying something similar about the CPS lack of willingness to prosecute. 

[Cameronstheman]

7 minutes ago, periodictabledancer said:

Ridiculous ?

This is what I read from you - "If he aint been charged, whys his name out for all to see  ??, that seems harsh". 

 

So how can it be "harsh" if you believe the women in question have a right to heard ? 

Basically, allegations  can be made against anyone ,historic or not, fair enough, but why can some hide behind this, but not the accused, he/she can be hung out to dry  

 

For what its worth i think Brand is a devious scum bag and those involved have every right to report him if they feel aggrieved 

 

But for me, unless charged, i  think the accused should stay anonymous 

[periodictabledancer]

Just now, Cameronstheman said:

Basically, allegations  can be made against anyone ,historic or not, fair enough, but why can some hide behind this, but not the accused, he/she can be hung out to dry  

 

For what its worth i think Brand is a devious scum bag and those involved have every right to report him if they feel aggrieved 

 

But for me, unless charged, i  think the accused should stay anonymous 

Normally, I'd agree with your last comment but in Brand's case his behaviour was well known and no one did a thing to stop him or protect the young women in his midst. His agent made it crystal clear how bad he  was - two spells of rehab , one specifically for "sex addiction". But even that failed. 

Listening to his behaviour while working for the BBC - utterly disgusting.

 

[Cameronstheman]

It doesn't matter who is being accused for me, even if we have a rough i  idea who it is, i still think its  unfair !! if charged fair enough, thats just my opinion 

[lou]

17 minutes ago, Luckies1874 said:

 

Has there been a suggestion that any of these woman have pursued a complaint and been rebuffed?  I have not read extensively about it but it was my impression is that the Police had never been contacted and that most if not all had requested anonymity for the released programme.

The point is rape victims have no faith in the judicial system and therefore a great deal of rapes and sexual assaults go unreported and incidentally one woman did attend a rape crisis centre afterwards and then chose not to report,l

[lou]

3 minutes ago, Cameronstheman said:

It doesn't matter who is being accused for me, even if we have a rough i  idea who it is, i still think its  unfair !! if charged fair enough, thats just my opinion 

Do you think it was unfair that Jilly Saville was named?

[Dawnrazor]

Just now, lou said:

Do you think it was unfair that Jilly Saville was named?

Don't tell me Jimmy's sister was a it as well🤦

Edited September 17, 2023 by Dawnrazor

[Spellczech]

6 minutes ago, Cameronstheman said:

Basically, allegations  can be made against anyone ,historic or not, fair enough, but why can some hide behind this, but not the accused, he/she can be hung out to dry  

 

For what its worth i think Brand is a devious scum bag and those involved have every right to report him if they feel aggrieved 

 

But for me, unless charged, i  think the accused should stay anonymous 

 

What I took from Dispatches last night was that the secondary accusations were against the production companies who must've known of Brand's behaviour yet their only apparent controls were to take women off the productions team, not let women be alone with Brand (which clearly didn't work) and to contractually ban him from having sex with people on the shows - which surely quite extraordinary as an employment contract term...? 

 

Might be that civil claims come against production companies and Brand in the next little while?

[Cameronstheman]

Just now, lou said:

Do you think it was unfair that Jilly Saville was named?

I dont care who it is , celeb or not, hope that helps

 

 

[Luckies1874]

7 minutes ago, lou said:

The point is rape victims have no faith in the judicial system and therefore a great deal of rapes and sexual assaults go unreported and incidentally one woman did attend a rape crisis centre afterwards and then chose not to report,l

 

I'm not arguing anything, was simply asking a question given what that poster had said about his own experiences. You are talking about a wider societal issue, I am only asking about this particular situation. If these woman have had efforts to file complaints rebuffed that is utterly disgraceful. If they are only anonymously willing to name a well known figure in a tv programme then it makes the whole situation far less clear. 

 

 

Edited September 17, 2023 by Luckies1874

[JudyJudyJudy]

7 minutes ago, Dawnrazor said:

Don't tell me Jimmy's sister was a it as well🤦

😂

[periodictabledancer]

23 minutes ago, Luckies1874 said:

 

I'm not arguing anything, was simply asking a question given what that poster had said about his own experiences. You are talking about a wider societal issue, I am only asking about this particular situation. If these woman have had efforts to file complaints rebuffed that is utterly disgraceful. If they are only anonymously willing to name a well known figure in a tv programme then it makes the whole situation far less clear. 

 

 

What is "far less clear " ?

[Luckies1874]

6 minutes ago, periodictabledancer said:

What is "far less clear " ?

 

Judging by your previous posts on the thread I suspect you are look for a barney and to attempt to twist what some are asking or suggesting. You aren't getting one from me! 😉

Edited September 17, 2023 by Luckies1874

[periodictabledancer]

9 minutes ago, Luckies1874 said:

 

Judging by your previous posts on the thread I suspect you are look for a barney and to attempt to twist what some are asking or suggesting. You aren't getting one from me! 😉

OK, at least that's clear. 🤷‍♂️

[JudyJudyJudy]

29 minutes ago, Lone Striker said:

A lot will depend on how many witnesses they can find who can actually testify about having seen Brand and woman X around the date/time of an alleged assault. Plus friends of woman X who can testify about anything she said around that time, and changes in behaviour afterwards.   Hard evidence like plane bookings, car hire, security CCTV etc too.  

 

For every good defence legal team, there's usually an equally good prosecution team who'll do thorough  homework & forensic investigation before  agreeing to bring the prosecution.

 

On a wider note,  the numbers of women coming forward in general now to make complaints about sex assaults within various workplaces going back many years is both encouraging and alarming at the same time.       Young  boys viewing porn on their phones and  thinking  it reflects real-life male entitlement grow up with warped beliefs about sex and women.   

 

Does the gay version of this result in increasing assaults too @JudyJudyJudy

 

Not sure .
 

But I’m assuming that male on male sexual assaults are maybe under recorded due to men feeling the stigma and shame ? There are still some who scoff at the idea of male to male sexual abuse . In particular male rape . 
 

However more straight and gay men are coming forward regarding historic abuse so that’s good that they may get some justice and closure 

 

 

[ｕｎｋｎｏｗｎｕｓｅｒ]

1 hour ago, Cameronstheman said:

It doesn't matter who is being accused for me, even if we have a rough i  idea who it is, i still think its  unfair !! if charged fair enough, thats just my opinion 

 

He can sue if he's an innocent man I suppose 

[Ked]

If your daughter came home at 16 telling you that Brand sent taxis to her school for her .

Would you go to the police knowing what we all know and how it seems to be that his like are protected?

Or would you take a bat to his body knowing that you might do a sentence but your daughter won't be victimised by him or the justice system?

I'd be wearing the overalls with arrows .

Yes innocent until proven guilty when justice works and the legal system protects. 

But as evident its been shown to rally round the criminal in these cases.

 

[JudyJudyJudy]

12 minutes ago, Ked said:

If your daughter came home at 16 telling you that Brand sent taxis to her school for her .

Would you go to the police knowing what we all know and how it seems to be that his like are protected?

Or would you take a bat to his body knowing that you might do a sentence but your daughter won't be victimised by him or the justice system?

I'd be wearing the overalls with arrows .

Yes innocent until proven guilty when justice works and the legal system protects. 

But as evident its been shown to rally round the criminal in these cases.

 

I’m quite shocked that he was openly in a relationship with. A 16 years old . I had never heard this before . I met my first  “husband “ when I was18 . He was a good bit older and “ smarter “ it was certainly not an equal relationship 

Edited September 17, 2023 by JudyJudyJudy

[Fitzroy Pointon]

I wonder if he'll cut his hair and lose the daft beads before he lands on the beast wing. 

[Footballfirst]

18 minutes ago, ǝǝɥʇᴉɯS said:

 

He can sue if he's an innocent man I suppose 

I'm not sure how a court would handle such a case. I suspect that would require Brand to demonstrate that the claims were not true and malicious, which might be difficult in a "he said" - "she said" argument.

[ｕｎｋｎｏｗｎｕｓｅｒ]

7 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

I'm not sure how a court would handle such a case. I suspect that would require Brand to demonstrate that the claims were not true and malicious, which might be difficult in a "he said" - "she said" argument.

 

With the standard of proof reduced from beyond reasonable doubt to the balance of probabilities he'd struggle. 

[moogsy]

The clips of him talking about spitting on women and making them gag during oral sex was creepy as ****. An absolute sex case.

 

Outside of the criminal stuff in the documentary, what I found alarming was the amount of women who were willing to have sex with him based purely on his celebrity, and were then upset when he never spoke to them again (the stuff detailed during his time as Big Brother host). An unsettling insight into how much value we place on celebrity as a society and how it can translate into people having such little respect for themselves. 

[doctor jambo]

1 hour ago, Spellczech said:

 

What I took from Dispatches last night was that the secondary accusations were against the production companies who must've known of Brand's behaviour yet their only apparent controls were to take women off the productions team, not let women be alone with Brand (which clearly didn't work) and to contractually ban him from having sex with people on the shows - which surely quite extraordinary as an employment contract term...? 

 

Might be that civil claims come against production companies and Brand in the next little while?

The crews were openly assisting him.

Procuring young women for sex, then fielding their calls in tears at being used, then getting him more conquests as if they hadn’t just heard the distresssed calls .

amd these were women

[JudyJudyJudy]

16 minutes ago, moogsy said:

The clips of him talking about spitting on women and making them gag during oral sex was creepy as ****. An absolute sex case.

 

Outside of the criminal stuff in the documentary, what I found alarming was the amount of women who were willing to have sex with him based purely on his celebrity, and were then upset when he never spoke to them again (the stuff detailed during his time as Big Brother host). An unsettling insight into how much value we place on celebrity as a society and how it can translate into people having such little respect for themselves. 

Yes the spitting thing is disgusting . Says a lot about someone 

[vegas-voss]

1 minute ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Yes the spitting thing is disgusting . Says a lot about someone 

Aye he is openly telling folk he takes pleasure in degrading women.What I find mental is a lot of women go to watch his shows and so are actually laughing at this shit.

[kevin_hmfc]

Regardless of who it is , I find it awful that the media can report all this when he's not been charged. 

 

Charged being different from convicted btw..

 

Imagine if he turns out to be innocent after all this.   

[JudyJudyJudy]

7 minutes ago, vegas-voss said:

Aye he is openly telling folk he takes pleasure in degrading women.What I find mental is a lot of women go to watch his shows and so are actually laughing at this shit.

Yes it’s a completely degrading “ fetish “ unsure why it “ turns” on some people . I’d give a guy a swift slap if he did that . 

[Cade]

 

[Luckies1874]

10 minutes ago, Cade said:

 

 

 

Was he not 'with' Peaches for a while?

[Ked]

1 hour ago, Salad Fingers said:

I wonder if he'll cut his hair and lose the daft beads before he lands on the beast wing. 

Keep them and play the martyr poster boy to all the other beasts.

What a fitting end that would be .

 

[Gizmo]

10 minutes ago, Luckies1874 said:

 

 

Was he not 'with' Peaches for a while?

There was also Pixie Geldof and Noel Fielding dating when she was 16. Fielding & Brand being mates.

[Ked]

25 minutes ago, kevin_hmfc said:

Regardless of who it is , I find it awful that the media can report all this when he's not been charged. 

 

Charged being different from convicted btw..

 

Imagine if he turns out to be innocent after all this.   

He's a beast mate.

And it makes a change that the perpetrator is tried by media.

Let's be honest now, for decades it was usually the victim that was tried by media unless they were of unblemished character.

 

 

 

[Malinga the Swinga]

31 minutes ago, kevin_hmfc said:

Regardless of who it is , I find it awful that the media can report all this when he's not been charged. 

 

Charged being different from convicted btw..

 

Imagine if he turns out to be innocent after all this.   

Wouldn't matter to pitchfork mob, several of whom are on here. Seems to be if they don't like someone, then they're guilty even without charges, trial or verdict.

 

[Luckies1874]

1 minute ago, Ked said:

 

Let's be honest now, for decades it was usually the victim that was tried by media unless they were of unblemished character.

 

 

 

 

The media don't care about the victims / survivors or any justice though, let's be honest. All they are interested in is the scandal, the sensationalism and the clicks.