Russell Brand

[John Findlay]

28 minutes ago, ǝǝɥʇᴉɯS said:

 

They're also entitled to talk about their experiences.

I haven't claimed otherwise.

[Dennis Reynolds]

2 hours ago, iantjambo said:

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

 

 

Yeah, I think you've misunderstood me.

[Mikey1874]

 

[BlueRiver]

6 hours ago, lou said:

Do you really really believe that this is an elaborate plot? And that the media asked a young.wowan to pretend she had a rich Powerful man stick his *** down her throat when she was 16???

I understand that some people think he should not have been named at this stage but to suggest this whole thing   is engineered to silence  his not very powerful voice is a lot of nonsense and incredibly disrespectful to the women involved, essentially calling them liars 

 

 

It's ridiculous that anyone would believe that Brand has anywhere near enough influence or intelligence for the "establishment" to hatch this elaborate plot. 

 

But folk believe any old pish. 

[Unknown user]

14 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

I haven't claimed otherwise.

I never said you did, it's a counter point.

[BlueRiver]

4 hours 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.

 

Much more balanced view but being open to ALL possibilities is a bit dense imo. 

 

There's a line you have to draw between the plausible and the downright fantastical. 

[cazzyy]

2 hours ago, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said:

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.

 

I don't want to be seen as a Brand apologist because I'm not but none of those articles say that he was suspected of raping the woman, in fact one of the articles points out that the Daily Star had to pay him substantial damages for even suggesting it.

 

[Malinga the Swinga]

1 hour 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. 

After the Mendy prosecution failed and the Salmond prosecution failed, both guilty in eyes of public before their trials, you are correct in your view.

Too some he is guilty because they don't like him (although they haven't met him) or  he's a wrong un (wtf does that even mean).

Don't particularly like his programmes, find him a bit of a sleazeball (based on his own comments) and wouldn't watch his online stuff but that doesn't mean he's guilty of criminal offence and being guilty can only be defined and decided in a Court of Law.

The day I decide anything on basis of a Rupert Murdoch led story will be day after hell has frozen over. 

 

[Mikey1874]

 

[Luckies1874]

42 minutes ago, cazzyy said:

 

I don't want to be seen as a Brand apologist because I'm not but none of those articles say that he was suspected of raping the woman, in fact one of the articles points out that the Daily Star had to pay him substantial damages for even suggesting it.

 

 

It's absolutely ridiculous that you have to caveat your posts by saying you are not a Brand apologist - that is very clear. The vast vast majority of reasonable people with a moral compass would wish to see Brand (or any man) guilty of rape and sexual offenses punished to the full extent of the law. That should not however mean that a situation like this, made public through a tv programme - not through criminal proceedings - and driven by a media interested in scandal, sensationalism and clicks NOT the victims / survivors of such events is not discussed with the possibility that some of the allegations (by no means all) are false and motivated by something other than legal justice. 

[periodictabledancer]

3 hours 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.
 

 

The credibilty of the 16 Y O was vehemently challenged (they accused her of wanting money to go away, in effect) by his then agents who have since distanced themselves from Brand and said they were fundamentally misled by Brand at the time. 

 

 

[henrysmithsgloves]

 

[periodictabledancer]

8 minutes ago, Luckies1874 said:

That should not however mean that a situation like this, made public through a tv programme - not through criminal proceedings - and driven by a media interested in scandal, sensationalism and clicks NOT the victims / survivors of such events is not discussed with the possibility that some of the allegations (by no means all) are false and motivated by something other than legal justice. 

How do you know ?

They couldn't possibly make the  programme in the first place without the testimony from the women in question. The Times has been working on this for four years and there's allegations they've breached a super injunction to do it. 

You talk about "a media" - it was The Times & Channel 4 : hardly known for senationalist clickbait.

Edited September 18, 2023 by periodictabledancer

[Luckies1874]

4 minutes ago, periodictabledancer said:

How do you know ?

They couldn't possibly make the  programme in the first place without the testimony from the women in question. The Times has been working on this for four years and there's allegations they've breached a super injunction to do it. 

You talk about "a media" - it was The Times & Channel 4 : hardly known for senationalist clickbait.

 

I'm talking more generally about the media not specifically the makers of the show. The media in general don't give 2 shits about the victims, they are only interested in causing as much controversy and gaining as many clicks as possible. They'll be lining up to find someone / anyone they can pay to break the next chapter of this. 

Edited September 18, 2023 by Luckies1874

[JimmyCant]

7 minutes ago, periodictabledancer said:

 

You talk about "a media" - it was The Times & Channel 4 : hardly known for senationalist clickbait.

Dunno about C4 but The Times, and other papers in the same group have settled hundreds of defamation claims in the last 20 years. Over £100 million to celebrities and royalty in the last 5 years alone. If Murdoch and his various news groups are known for anything, it’s sensationalist click bait reporting. Defamations , intrusions, invasions of privacy, peddling untrue conspiracy stories, theft of data, phone hacking. All stuff they’ve tacitly admitted by settling cases

[periodictabledancer]

1 minute ago, JimmyCant said:

Dunno about C4 but The Times, and other papers in the same group have settled hundreds of defamation claims in the last 20 years. Over £100 million to celebrities and royalty in the last 5 years alone. If Murdoch and his various news groups are known for anything, it’s sensationalist click bait reporting. Defamations , intrusions, invasions of privacy, peddling untrue conspiracy stories, theft of data, phone hacking. All stuff they’ve tacitly admitted by settling cases

You're rolling up the entire Murdoch stable and numerous other unrelated issues. No one would deny the Times has got it wrong on occasion , historically,  but that's not under discussion here (nor is the past behaviours of s*n, NOTW) . 

My point still stands : they spent four years researching this , they're not known for  senationalist clickbait. Which was the point the OP was making. 

[Harry Potter]

Could do with a good haircut and shave, imho.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

Just now, Harry Potter said:

Could do with a good haircut and shave, imho.

Could do with a good shoeing

[cazzyy]

Just now, Harry Potter said:

Could do with a good haircut and shave, imho.

 

Do you want recommendations?

[Spellczech]

1 hour ago, periodictabledancer said:

The credibilty of the 16 Y O was vehemently challenged (they accused her of wanting money to go away, in effect) by his then agents who have since distanced themselves from Brand and said they were fundamentally misled by Brand at the time. 

 

 

It was his lawyer not his agent - though one probably engaged the other...

[JimmyCant]

52 minutes ago, periodictabledancer said:

You're rolling up the entire Murdoch stable and numerous other unrelated issues. No one would deny the Times has got it wrong on occasion , historically,  but that's not under discussion here (nor is the past behaviours of s*n, NOTW) . 

My point still stands : they spent four years researching this , they're not known for  senationalist clickbait. Which was the point the OP was making. 

You think a big spread story about a fairly minor celebrity, with unchallenged statements  and no police reports of any criminality by anyone involved (up until 2 hours ago) isn’t sensationalist click bait ? Even if every word is true and even if it’s not their normal style, that’s exactly what this is.

 

You may not want to discuss it, but the Times is known for defamation. They’ve paid out several times for it.

[Mikey1874]

31 minutes ago, Harry Potter said:

Could do with a good haircut and shave, imho.

 

Plenty time now his shows have been cancelled 

[Greedy Jambo]

His stand-up show is sold out again tonight, apparently. 

I'm surprised it's still going ahead, guilty or not guilty. 

 

[I P Knightley]

3 hours 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. 

If I could trust the process by which the guilty are found to be so in court, I'd have nothing to discuss with you. 

 

I've lived first-hand a case where a guilty party (as mentioned, in a far less serious crime) has walked free due to incompetence. Did you hear the audio clip and/or see the photos relating to the allegations about Mason Greenwood? If so, do you still maintain your stance of innocent until found guilty in a court of law? Dropped charges simply mean that the CPS/PF don't have enough to support a prosecution with more than an 80% chance of success. (I can't say for sure that percentage holds in Scotland but it's the rule of thumb I was told applies down here.) Likewise, Jimmy Savile never stood trial - do you still count him as innocent? 

 

I'll be a broken record: the statistic that fewer than 2% of rapes result in prosecution of the racist tells me to be sceptical at the very least of backing someone as being innocent, especially if all the evidence of their character and past behaviour (his own tweets and his own comments - not just hearsay) point towards it being a credible accusation. 

[I P Knightley]

10 minutes ago, Greedy Jambo said:

His stand-up show is sold out again tonight, apparently. 

I'm surprised it's still going ahead, guilty or not guilty. 

 

If he's innocent, why would he cancel? He'll be very careful when referring to the allegations but he'll carry it off. 

 

I suspect there's going to be a few tickets changing hands at above face value with rubber neckers wanting to get in and possibly to disrupt the show. 

[indianajones]

20 years later. Interesting timing.

 

He's someone that speaks a lot of truths others are too scared to talk about. 

[Ked]

3 minutes ago, I P Knightley said:

If he's innocent, why would he cancel? He'll be very careful when referring to the allegations but he'll carry it off. 

 

I suspect there's going to be a few tickets changing hands at above face value with rubber neckers wanting to get in and possibly to disrupt the show. 

His shows postponed.

Listening to radio Scotland on way home.

Apparently an open secret he was a sexual predator.

So all the men and those in authoritive positions and no one spoke up.

And we are victim blaming on here.

Should have went to the police ,should have complained sooner.

The 16 year old when he was 30 had a number done on her by Brand.

Hope this ruins him ..

Sleazy nonce that deserves no protection .

[Greedy Jambo]

7 minutes ago, I P Knightley said:

If he's innocent, why would he cancel? He'll be very careful when referring to the allegations but he'll carry it off. 

 

I suspect there's going to be a few tickets changing hands at above face value with rubber neckers wanting to get in and possibly to disrupt the show. 

 

Fair point, but the mental effects of being accused of Rape must be mega. 

[Ked]

5 minutes ago, indianajones said:

20 years later. Interesting timing.

 

He's someone that speaks a lot of truths others are too scared to talk about. 

Behave.

I happen to agree with some of the stuff he's been going on about.

The suggestion that he's being victimised is pish.

Tony Benn was saying the same stuff 50 years ago.

He didn't treat women like cheap meat.

And the Internet is full of people not scared.

Stop defending a beast ffs.

[Ked]

1 minute ago, Greedy Jambo said:

 

Fair point, but the mental effects of being accused of Rape must be mega. 

Don't rape people then.

Fairly simple.

 

It's alarming the sympathy this piece of shit is getting.

 

[Ked]

Open secrets like Saville, Epstein etc.

But we focus on the lassies who should've gone against a power imbalance.

Do yooz c!@#s not pay attention to reality.

 

[Malinga the Swinga]

4 minutes ago, Ked said:

Don't rape people then.

Fairly simple.

 

It's alarming the sympathy this piece of shit is getting.

 

Who's giving him sympathy. Let court decide on truth, not done self appointed moral guardians on here, or media, who jump from one crusade to another. 

You have decided, on basis of a TV program, he is guilty. No need for trial or defence, he's a wrong un cause you know all facts, despite all facts not being available.

If he goes to court and is found guilty, then throw book at him as he will deserve it. Till then, perhaps consider keeping quiet.

 

[indianajones]

8 minutes ago, Ked said:

Behave.

I happen to agree with some of the stuff he's been going on about.

The suggestion that he's being victimised is pish.

Tony Benn was saying the same stuff 50 years ago.

He didn't treat women like cheap meat.

And the Internet is full of people not scared.

Stop defending a beast ffs.

 

Where did i defend him?

 

#metoo was 2017 and we are still learning of this stuff. He was a Hollywood star as well.

[Unknown user]

Just now, Malinga the Swinga said:

Who's giving him sympathy. Let court decide on truth, not done self appointed moral guardians on here, or media, who jump from one crusade to another. 

You have decided, on basis of a TV program, he is guilty. No need for trial or defence, he's a wrong un cause you know all facts, despite all facts not being available.

If he goes to court and is found guilty, then throw book at him as he will deserve it. Till then, perhaps consider keeping quiet.

 

 

Remind me of your thoughts on Sturgeon's guilt

[Malinga the Swinga]

3 minutes ago, ǝǝɥʇᴉɯS said:

 

Remind me of your thoughts on Sturgeon's guilt

Think while I laughed, I also said I would wait till trial before condemning her. 

As such, I haven't commented for weeks on her guilt or innocence.

I mean if we are throwing stones, let's look at your comments on Salmond, a man found not guilty of accusations made against him.

[doctor jambo]

Perhaps it is time for all men to stop celebrating these “lotharios” 

shagger-of-the -year awards

 

well, it’s now rapist of the month.

you don’t stack up the numbers he did without treating women like shit.

your approach would need to be pretty direct.

not much wooing involved there

and I’m not buying the sex addict thing

 

-I don’t think it’s even a thing .

it’s an excuse.

 

[Fitzroy Pointon]

24 minutes ago, indianajones said:

20 years later. Interesting timing.

 

He's someone that speaks a lot of truths others are too scared to talk about. 

 

What difference does it make it it was 20 years or 20mins ago? 

[Malinga the Swinga]

Just now, Salad Fingers said:

 

What difference does it make it it was 20 years or 20mins ago? 

Well if it was 20 minutes ago, evidence would be available that certainly won't be 20 years later.

 

[indianajones]

****in' hell.

 

Many folk talking liberties with posts on this thread.

[doctor jambo]

1 minute ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

Think while I laughed, I also said I would wait till trial before condemning her. 

As such, I haven't commented for weeks on her guilt or innocence.

I mean if we are throwing stones, let's look at your comments on Salmond, a man found not guilty of accusations made against him.

Salmond was certainly a very handsy sleeze ball .

these guys who treat women like shit eventually fall

as Salmond has done and has never recovered 

even without jail, sleazy brand is finished because he massively disrespected women, used them, ghosted them and manipulated them

[Fitzroy Pointon]

3 minutes ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

Well if it was 20 minutes ago, evidence would be available that certainly won't be 20 years later.

 

 

I don't think that's the point he was making though. 

[vegas-voss]

2 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

Salmond was certainly a very handsy sleeze ball .

these guys who treat women like shit eventually fall

as Salmond has done and has never recovered 

even without jail, sleazy brand is finished because he massively disrespected women, used them, ghosted them and manipulated them

Unless he is convicted Brand will be bigger than ever on his social media shite and continue to make ****ing millions each year.He was already finished in the mainstream.

[Unknown user]

5 minutes ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

Think while I laughed, I also said I would wait till trial before condemning her. 

As such, I haven't commented for weeks on her guilt or innocence.

I mean if we are throwing stones, let's look at your comments on Salmond, a man found not guilty of accusations made against him.

 

For weeks, goodness!

Pretty sure I said I didn't know what happened with salmond, I wasn't there. The big difference here is what's in the public domain about Brand, from his mouth too.

 

I can't say anything about criminal accusations but I'm happy to agree that he's a sexual predator.

[Ked]

17 minutes ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

Who's giving him sympathy. Let court decide on truth, not done self appointed moral guardians on here, or media, who jump from one crusade to another. 

You have decided, on basis of a TV program, he is guilty. No need for trial or defence, he's a wrong un cause you know all facts, despite all facts not being available.

If he goes to court and is found guilty, then throw book at him as he will deserve it. Till then, perhaps consider keeping quiet.

 

Believe me I don't want to post .

But the ignorance from people like you.

Should've went to the police should've complained to his bosses.

 

So aye I should be quiet just like the lassies he raped,abused treated like shite.

Have you no female relations ?

Do you not think reptiles like that rat have gotten away with it for far too long.

Maybe not talk about Saville or ponce Andrew as none went to court.

You can ram telling me to pipe down fekin dafty

[Greedy Jambo]

Some people on here are going to have a heart attack before we see the conclusion of this. 

[Hmfc1965]

5 hours ago, That thing you do said:

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.

 

 

And how do you suggest we do "more".

I'm all in favour of throwing the book at the guilty but how do you find the evidence?

[doctor jambo]

Just now, Hmfc1965 said:

And how do you suggest we do "more".

I'm all in favour of throwing the book at the guilty but how do you find the evidence?

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

[BlueRiver]

3 minutes ago, Greedy Jambo said:

Some people on here are going to have a heart attack before we see the conclusion of this. 

 

[Malinga the Swinga]

28 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

Salmond was certainly a very handsy sleeze ball .

these guys who treat women like shit eventually fall

as Salmond has done and has never recovered 

even without jail, sleazy brand is finished because he massively disrespected women, used them, ghosted them and manipulated them

Being a handsy sleazeball wasn't what he was accused of though and it doesn't seem to be a criminal offence.

Disrespecting women, ghosting them and manipulating them may be distasteful and unpleasant but it isn't a criminal offence either, or at least not unless they're under age or fraud involved.

He may be guilty of what is levied against him or he may not. Won't matter to the high and mighty on here though who have declared him guilty in absentia of trial.

The same people laugh at Trumps followers for being easily led/manipulated and yet 1 TV program and a paper report and that's them convinced.

Wait to see if he's convicted and then folk can comment all they like. That's not too tough and ask.

[Malinga the Swinga]

12 minutes ago, Greedy Jambo said:

Some people on here are going to have a heart attack before we see the conclusion of this. 

Only if he's not charged or found not guilty. If he's charged and found guilty, they can lock him up and throw away key as far as everyone (well 99.99%) of people are concerned.