Russell Brand

[Ked]

Just now, JimmyCant said:

Sexual violence against women is despicable. Let me be clear on that. But it’s almost always one to one with someone they knew or had some

level of interaction with (but stopped short of consent) I don’t know how you improve the process and make conviction more likely without exposing innocent men to false convictions.

Maybe men have to think a bit more about things then buddy.

Because sexual violence towards women is the real problem here.

I'm out of this topic now.

I've nothing more to add really.

[henrysmithsgloves]

What happened to the other comedians that were going to be named?

[lou]

58 minutes ago, That thing you do said:

I'm open to all possibilities until

 

a) he's charged then b) convicted

 

At present he hasn't been so muck raking is still on the table. I'm not in Shaun Attwoods camp where he's convinced of that. But I am not on the hang him side either minus conviction and charges.

 

I dont judge by what's in the media, I'm not jumping on the bandwagon until the police and the courts have.

 

Trials are in court, not on channel 4

 

I'm not a sheep (wrong forum to be one).

 

I also think he's a detestable human being but that not the same as being a rapist. That requires a criminal court.

My last comment is very few rape cases end up in court and the conviction rate is significantly lower,.maybe worth researching why

[iantjambo]

1 hour ago, Dennis Reynolds said:

He's done well convincing stupid people he's important enough to matter tbh.

 I assume that you’re including yourself in that statement?

[John Findlay]

8 minutes ago, lou said:

My last comment is very few rape cases end up in court and the conviction rate is significantly lower,.maybe worth researching why

In a criminal court of law a person has to be found guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. If the jurors 12 in an English court, 15 in a Scottish Court, made up of both females and males believe there is not enough evidence to convict, then they won't convict. 

[cazzyy]

51 minutes ago, Ked said:

You're tge one who said what if my daughter was lying.

I asked if your daughter said the beast was sending taxis to her school ?

That would be enough for me.

Sorry it doesn't sit well with you.

 

 

What doesn't sit well with me? You taking a bat to the wrong person?

Damn right it doesn't.

[Ray Gin]

47 minutes ago, JimmyCant said:

So you don’t want their credibility tested or any vital forensic evidence collected. You just allow women to report they said No and you accept that as fact without challenging it ?

 

Being raped, I’m pretty sure is far more traumatic than the process of trying to get some justice for it. 
 

If you don’t test evidence properly and question it, innocent men go to jail and have their lives ruined. 

 

Have you actually watched the Dispatches episode or read the Times article? There is an absolute wealth of evidence against him, from victim statements, corroborative medical records, his own management, former colleagues and even things written into his contracts. There are witnesses who heard a girl screaming in his home while being assaulted and saw her running out in tears. 

 

He's notoriously litigious and there's no way The Times/Dispatches were going to release this without absolute certainty that their 2 year investigation was absolutely airtight.

[Fitzroy Pointon]

38 minutes ago, lou said:

I'm bowing out of this, I have never at point said Brand is guilty but as perhaps the only female poster here, I find it quite unsettling that a few posters are insinuating these women have made it up as part of some big conspiracy to silence a not very important person.

 

 

 

The Goodwillie thread showed a hell of a lot of people in not a very good light. 

 

This has the potential to go the same way. 

[cazzyy]

7 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

Have you actually watched the Dispatches episode or read the Times article? There is an absolute wealth of evidence against him, from victim statements, corroborative medical records, his own management, former colleagues and even things written into his contracts. There are witnesses who heard a girl screaming in his home while being assaulted and saw her running out in tears. 

 

He's notoriously litigious and there's no way The Times/Dispatches were going to release this without absolute certainty that their 2 year investigation was absolutely airtight.

 

So why is it not a criminal case? Have the program makers not prejudiced any future case by screening?

[Ray Gin]

2 minutes ago, cazzyy said:

 

So why is it not a criminal case? Have the program makers not prejudiced any future case by screening?

 

Because the victims understandably don't want to go through the turmoil.

[cazzyy]

Just now, Ray Gin said:

 

Because the victims understandably don't want to go through the turmoil.

 

So jail isn't the end game here?

[Dennis Reynolds]

28 minutes ago, iantjambo said:

 I assume that you’re including yourself in that statement?

 

You assume wrong champ.

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

4 hours ago, That thing you do said:

I don't like Brand. He's a self confessed womanizer and all round arsehole.

 

With that said, not everyone thinks the timing of this is coincidence

 

 

The argument here is some of the powers that be wanted him silenced.

 

He needs charged and a fair trial if there's a real reporting of cases going on.

 

It was reported in 2006, long before he started whining about everything, that he was suspected of raping a woman, in Edinburgh (end of the festival).

He's a beast, and his conspiracy theory slaverings is a ruse to cover up the rapes (IMO).

[the posh bit]

26 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

In a criminal court of law a person has to be found guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. If the jurors 12 in an English court, 15 in a Scottish Court, made up of both females and males believe there is not enough evidence to convict, then they won't convict. 

 

Unbelievably crass, even by your standards. 

[Ray Gin]

6 minutes ago, cazzyy said:

 

So jail isn't the end game here?

 

Not unless other victims come forward who do want to press charges.

[cazzyy]

3 minutes ago, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said:

It was reported in 2006, long before he started whining about everything, that he was suspected of raping a woman, in Edinburgh (end of the festival).

He's a beast, and his conspiracy theory slaverings is a ruse to cover up the rapes (IMO).

 

You sure? Someone posted earlier that the alleged rape was in a friend of the posters rental accommodation and it was one of Brand's friends who was accused not him.

Edited September 18, 2023 by cazzyy

[cazzyy]

Just now, Ray Gin said:

 

Not unless other victims come forward who do want to press charges.

 

Then @Ked is welcome to take the bat approach then.

[John Findlay]

1 minute ago, the posh bit said:

 

Unbelievably crass, even by your standards. 

Life is not a bouquet of Roses.

You may say crass but that's the way it is.

Russell Brand whether people like it or not is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

That's the system in this country and hundreds of others.

It's not a perfect system but until a better one is thought up its the system we have.

If you still think it's crass of me then tough shit.

[JimmyCant]

48 minutes ago, lou said:

My last comment is very few rape cases end up in court and the conviction rate is significantly lower,.maybe worth researching why

Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt would be the answer in most cases I should think. The very bricks that the justice system in developed countries is built on. Bricks that pressure groups want removed it would seem.

[Unknown user]

I don't know enough to say much about alleged crimes, but he IS a sexual predator, he's said as much himself, and if people want to get that out, they're free to do so.

 

If he tries to sue, he'll lose.

 

This isn't Barry Chuckle, this is a guy who everyone knows is a crazy shagger and a wonker (if you don't think that after the Andrew Sachs thing then up ye!)

 

Criminal allegations are a different story, and if there's evidence enough he'll surely be charged. But calling a ***** a ***** is surely fair game, letting other starstruck young lassies know just how bad it is seems like a good cause.

Edited September 18, 2023 by ǝǝɥʇᴉɯS

[Pasquale for King]

Cold War Steve spot on as usual. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

1 hour ago, That thing you do said:

I'm open to all possibilities until

 

a) he's charged then b) convicted

 

At present he hasn't been so muck raking is still on the table. I'm not in Shaun Attwoods camp where he's convinced of that. But I am not on the hang him side either minus conviction and charges.

 

I dont judge by what's in the media, I'm not jumping on the bandwagon until the police and the courts have.

 

Trials are in court, not on channel 4

 

I'm not a sheep (wrong forum to be one).

 

I also think he's a detestable human being but that not the same as being a rapist. That requires a criminal court.

Good posting 

40 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

In a criminal court of law a person has to be found guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. If the jurors 12 in an English court, 15 in a Scottish Court, made up of both females and males believe there is not enough evidence to convict, then they won't convict. 

Yep 👍 been on a jury myself and it was a great experience . We certainly mulled through the evidence and came to the right verdict . 

8 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

Life is not a bouquet of Roses.

You may say crass but that's the way it is.

Russell Brand whether people like it or not is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

That's the system in this country and hundreds of others.

It's not a perfect system but until a better one is thought up its the system we have.

If you still think it's crass of me then tough shit.

Yep 

Just now, JimmyCant said:

Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt would be the answer in most cases I should think. The very bricks that the justice system in developed countries is built on. Bricks that pressure groups want removed it would seem.

Yes some politicians want this very corner stone of our justice system removed . 

[Spellczech]

16 hours 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.   

Have you considered that you perhaps have far too much regard for the legal system?

 

The legal system is just an old-fashioned system by which society judges, punishes and ostracises members who digress from the  norms of acceptable behaviour. 

 

Like it or not social media has trod on the toes of the legal system with big heavy boots and those who misbehave have to beware of this...

[Unknown user]

Just now, Spellczech said:

Have you considered that you perhaps have far too much regard for the legal system?

 

The legal system is just an old-fashioned system by which society judges, punishes and ostracises members who digress from the  norms of acceptable behaviour. 

 

Like it or not social media has trod on the toes of the legal system with big heavy boots and those who misbehave have to beware of this...

 

Yep, how can you expect privacy when you're intimate with hundreds, thousands?

[JimmyCant]

34 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

Have you actually watched the Dispatches episode or read the Times article? There is an absolute wealth of evidence against him, from victim statements, corroborative medical records, his own management, former colleagues and even things written into his contracts. There are witnesses who heard a girl screaming in his home while being assaulted and saw her running out in tears. 

 

He's notoriously litigious and there's no way The Times/Dispatches were going to release this without absolute certainty that their 2 year investigation was absolutely airtight.

Ought to be easy enough to get the cases into court and get him convicted then if it’s that clean cut.

 

Ive seen the programme and read the articles. No one who contributed had their credibility challenged or their evidence properly probed on behalf of the accused. 
 

There’s a wealth of evidence that the accused has the right to have challenged and tested. Until that time it’s a one sided hatchet job.
 

 

[Vansen]

14 hours ago, Shooter McGavin said:

No doubt he’ll be the new cult hero for incels.

As can be seen from the reactions online. The mainstream media coming after him FFS!

It's not really a coincidence that people like him and Tait, who seem to revel in treating women like shit, become folk heroes for a large percentage of unfulfilled and angry men who blame women for the reasons they have failed in life. 

[Pasquale for King]

1 minute ago, Vansen said:

As can be seen from the reactions online. The mainstream media coming after him FFS!

It's not really a coincidence that people like him and Tait, who seem to revel in treating women like shit, become folk heroes for a large percentage of unfulfilled and angry men who blame women for the reasons they have failed in life. 

Spot on 👍🏽👏🏾

[iantjambo]

30 minutes ago, Dennis Reynolds said:

 

You assume wrong champ.

 But here you are, reading and commenting on a thread that’s all about him.

 

[Ray Gin]

15 minutes ago, Vansen said:

As can be seen from the reactions online. The mainstream media coming after him FFS!

It's not really a coincidence that people like him and Tait, who seem to revel in treating women like shit, become folk heroes for a large percentage of unfulfilled and angry men who blame women for the reasons they have failed in life. 

 

[¼½¾]

1 hour ago, lou said:

My last comment is very few rape cases end up in court and the conviction rate is significantly lower,.maybe worth researching why

I think one of the main reasons is, that because of the nature of the crime, there are rarely any witnesses.

[JudyJudyJudy]

18 minutes ago, JimmyCant said:

Ought to be easy enough to get the cases into court and get him convicted then if it’s that clean cut.

 

Ive seen the programme and read the articles. No one who contributed had their credibility challenged or their evidence properly probed on behalf of the accused. 
 

There’s a wealth of evidence that the accused has the right to have challenged and tested. Until that time it’s a one sided hatchet job.
 

 

Yes probably best seeing if there is enough evidence for it to be taken to court . I’ll reserve judgement until then . 

[Unknown user]

35 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

Life is not a bouquet of Roses.

You may say crass but that's the way it is.

Russell Brand whether people like it or not is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

That's the system in this country and hundreds of others.

It's not a perfect system but until a better one is thought up its the system we have.

If you still think it's crass of me then tough shit.

 

There's innocent and innocent though. He may be criminally innocent, and without a trial that's the default. But that doesn't mean he's innocent of wrongdoing. There's plenty of legal behaviour that society doesn't like and is open for discussion.

 

It does seem they're daring him to sue.

Edited September 18, 2023 by ǝǝɥʇᴉɯS

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

43 minutes ago, cazzyy said:

 

You sure? Someone posted earlier that the alleged rape was in a friend of the posters rental accommodation and it was one of Brand's friends who was accused not him.

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Brand+faces+party+rape+probe%3B+EXCLUSIVE.-a0150811217

 

https://pressgazette.co.uk/publishers/nationals/russell-brand-accepts-substantial-damages-from-daily-star-over-rape-claim/

 

Edited to add another link https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/drugged-raped-bb-star-brand-17977949

 

There you go. The rapist was litigious, then, too.

Edited September 18, 2023 by Joey J J Jr Shabadoo

[MoncurMacdonaldMercer]

47 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

Life is not a bouquet of Roses.

You may say crass but that's the way it is.

Russell Brand whether people like it or not is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

That's the system in this country and hundreds of others.

It's not a perfect system but until a better one is thought up its the system we have.

If you still think it's crass of me then tough shit.

that’s a bit too grown-up for here mate 

[MoncurMacdonaldMercer]

people with tens of thousands of posts getting all upset about subject after subject talking about others failing in life 

 

 

[Cade]

[Luckies1874]

17 minutes ago, ǝǝɥʇᴉɯS said:

 

 

It does seem they're daring him to sue.

 

Who is daring him to sue? The programme makers? Why would the woman making the allegations dare him to sue given that would lead to court activity which apparently they have not wanted to pursue? 

[Unknown user]

11 minutes ago, Luckies1874 said:

 

Who is daring him to sue? The programme makers? Why would the woman making the allegations dare him to sue given that would lead to court activity which apparently they have not wanted to pursue? 

 

Because they know he's not going to sue.

[Luckies1874]

12 minutes ago, ǝǝɥʇᴉɯS said:

 

Because they know he's not going to sue.

 

 

So they are daring him to sue knowing he won't but they don't want him to anyway. Got it.

[Unknown user]

5 minutes ago, Luckies1874 said:

 

So they are daring him to sue knowing he won't but they don't want him to anyway. Got it.

 

 is that quite complicated to you?

[Luckies1874]

3 minutes ago, ǝǝɥʇᴉɯS said:

 

 is that quite complicated to you?

 

Not at all complicated. Just sounds like complete nonsense. 

Edited September 18, 2023 by Luckies1874

[Ray Gin]

Floodgates are open. Another who was involved with him aged 16 comes forward, amongst other women.

 

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/russell-brand-latest-16-year-old-accuser-bbc-car-took-comedians-house-102903190.html

 

 

[Shooter McGavin]

1 hour ago, Vansen said:

As can be seen from the reactions online. The mainstream media coming after him FFS!

It's not really a coincidence that people like him and Tait, who seem to revel in treating women like shit, become folk heroes for a large percentage of unfulfilled and angry men who blame women for the reasons they have failed in life. 

Sadly, you’re correct.

 

Only folk that seem to be defending his behaviour are incels and conspiracy nutjobs. Oh and a female comedian who was on Twitter saying that she’d slept with him and he treated her well so then all these other women must be lying…

 

[The Mighty Thor]

4 hours ago, Armageddon said:

If the establishment thing was even close to true he'd be found full of drugs and drowned in his own bath.

 

This.

 

The reality is he's broadcasting to absolute bangers, Incels and shitehawks.

 

He's a figure of ridicule with his conspiracist yogi pish.

 

54 minutes ago, Cade said:

 

Superb. 

[That thing you do]

2 hours ago, lou said:

My last comment is very few rape cases end up in court and the conviction rate is significantly lower,.maybe worth researching why

Sadly you're right on this.

 

However, the bar should be set at guilty in a criminal court as otherwise its torches and pitchforks.

 

More needs to be done to convict men guilty of rape.

 

 

[I P Knightley]

1 hour ago, John Findlay said:

Life is not a bouquet of Roses.

You may say crass but that's the way it is.

Russell Brand whether people like it or not is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

That's the system in this country and hundreds of others.

It's not a perfect system but until a better one is thought up its the system we have.

If you still think it's crass of me then tough shit.

Not, strictly speaking, true.

 

If I've thrown a brick through your window, I'm a guilty party.

You might decide not to prosecute - doesn't make me innocent.

The CPS might put forward an abject case while I hire a nifty lawyer who can argue something semantic that the CPS can't counter - the beaks have to say "not guilty" but I'm not innocent.

 

It takes us back to that 2% of rapes being convicted statistic. I don't know what gets measured as the 100% in that calculation - i.e. do they know for certain that a rape occurred or is it an allegation of rape? One way or the other, there's still going to be a massive number of 'guilty' rapists who have not been found to be so in a court.

[MoncurMacdonaldMercer]

4 minutes ago, I P Knightley said:

Not, strictly speaking, true.

 

If I've thrown a brick through your window, I'm a guilty party.

You might decide not to prosecute - doesn't make me innocent.

The CPS might put forward an abject case while I hire a nifty lawyer who can argue something semantic that the CPS can't counter - the beaks have to say "not guilty" but I'm not innocent.

 

It takes us back to that 2% of rapes being convicted statistic. I don't know what gets measured as the 100% in that calculation - i.e. do they know for certain that a rape occurred or is it an allegation of rape? One way or the other, there's still going to be a massive number of 'guilty' rapists who have not been found to be so in a court.

the brick thing - it does make you innocent when you apply for a job and have a clear criminal check but I get your point

 

as john said (and others) the legal system is far from perfect and even those tried in court it’s accepted that some guilty will walk free and some innocent will be jailed etc 

 

again as said until we come up with something better this flawed system is what we’ve got

 

 

 

 

[John Findlay]

Just now, I P Knightley said:

Not, strictly speaking, true.

 

If I've thrown a brick through your window, I'm a guilty party.

You might decide not to prosecute - doesn't make me innocent.

The CPS might put forward an abject case while I hire a nifty lawyer who can argue something semantic that the CPS can't counter - the beaks have to say "not guilty" but I'm not innocent.

 

It takes us back to that 2% of rapes being convicted statistic. I don't know what gets measured as the 100% in that calculation - i.e. do they know for certain that a rape occurred or is it an allegation of rape? One way or the other, there's still going to be a massive number of 'guilty' rapists who have not been found to be so in a court.

Speculation.

These women are entitled to make a complaint against Russell Brand to the police. The police then have to investigate the complaint/complaints. If they believe there is enough evidence to charge they will charge. In England it then goes to the CPS(Crown Prosecution Service), in Scotland the PF(Procurator Fiscal), who then decide to prosecute in court.

Let me make myself clear here. If Russell Brand is charged and found guilty in court then  I hope he gets 25yrs in prison at the least. To me after murder, rape is the most heinous crime there is 

 

I won't judge anyone female or male via trial by television, radio, or the written media. 

[Unknown user]

3 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

Speculation.

These women are entitled to make a complaint against Russell Brand to the police. The police then have to investigate the complaint/complaints. If they believe there is enough evidence to charge they will charge. In England it then goes to the CPS(Crown Prosecution Service), in Scotland the PF(Procurator Fiscal), who then decide to prosecute in court.

Let me make myself clear here. If Russell Brand is charged and found guilty in court then  I hope he gets 25yrs in prison at the least. To me after murder, rape is the most heinous crime there is 

 

I won't judge anyone female or male via trial by television, radio, or the written media. 

 

They're also entitled to talk about their experiences.

[Mikey1874]