Russell Brand

[robbie54321]

I’ve seen in the news that Russel Brand is accused of rape. It looks pretty convincing. I actually liked Brand, he’s pretty left wing but will take on the liberal left establishment and generally wins or at least makes some thought provoking sense. Is it me or does it all seem a bit odd that powerful anti establishment voices such as Brand, Tate and even Trump all end up accused of rape? I’ve no time for Tate but we was very outspoken and tbh I was sort of pleased to see the back of him. However it’s starting to look very odd when another high profile critic of the establishment is having his collar felt.

[timsussex]

He's a talentless total prat; that's not based on the C4/Times revelations I came to that conclusion years ago. It was really just a matter of time before something like this surfaced and I suspect there will be a long line of women coming forward.

[Spunky34]

I’m sure any number of psychiatrists will have explanations for exactly why men like Trump, Tate and Brand end up accused of sexual offences, coercive control etc.  And it’s nothing to do with politics or being anti-establishment.

[Hornycustodian]

Couple of  months ago, there was speculation that he shifted hard to the right  to build goodwill amongst them ashe gotwind that something like this was happening. He can now claim the "public " want  to silence his voice with these accusations that frankly has been round since 1999 at least. Dude was a proper perv esp in uni scenes

[Charlie Chalk]

Yes, of course. It’s all a conspiracy, all of it.

Tell me OP, did you get the tinfoil hat made-to-measure or off the shelf?

Brand’s a talentless, overly-verbose twat. And now it seems he may actually be much, much worse.

[kuck]

He's being defended by Musk, Peterson, Tate, Fox et al. He must be 100% innocent. Probably a saint.

[willie loman]

he is quite funny, he has never hidden that he is priapic, we will see how this pans out, doesnt look good for him.

[mr.bluesky]

He's a talentless total prat; that's not based on the C4/Times revelations I came to that conclusion years ago. It was really just a matter of time before something like this surfaced and I suspect there will be a long line of women coming forward.

100 % agree, never ever found him funny

[badsin]

Somehow he managed to get in Katy Perry's pants.... other than that he's a twat 

[Dark Vader]

I’ve seen in the news that Russel Brand is accused of rape. It looks pretty convincing.

Are you talking about the dispatches? I haven't seen it. Has he been interviewed under caution yet?

[timsussex]

Somehow he managed to get in Katy Perry's pants.... other than that he's a twat 

I put that down to her stupidity - which I would happily forgive

[kuck]

He's a talentless total prat; that's not based on the C4/Times revelations I came to that conclusion years ago. It was really just a matter of time before something like this surfaced and I suspect there will be a long line of women coming forward.

True. He appears to love spewing out complex word salads. Sometimes using words he doesn't even understand. Metastasise doesn't mean what he thinks it means.

[Jonestown]

He's a twat so he must be guilty ?

[timsussex]

He's a twat so he must be guilty ?

No but he is a twat and as the OP posted the accusations do look pretty convincing

[badsin]

He is a twat, as yet he is only guilty of that....which, to be fair is opinion. He is guilty of nothing, until proven 

[xxxpacxxx]

Felt the need to comment but would be torn apart for saying this on social media.

Don’t like him much. The rape allegations have to be dealt with properly and if proven who should go to prison.

The part I’m slightly uncomfortable with in the Dispatches show is some of the coercive control allegations when he’s been working as a presenter, which appear to have been consensual sexual relationships but later regretted by those who had sex with him. I worked overseas in an 18-30 type holiday resort, where I had sex on a regular basis with girls who were on holiday and who probably wouldn’t have done so I’d met them in Birmingham on a Saturday night. I was in a position where I got free drinks and free entry to clubs and I, like many others, enjoyed the celebrity style status that came with the job. There were most likely girls that went home to their boyfriends and regretted sleeping with the lad they met on holiday, but it was always consensual and we always said goodbye on good terms.

That was over 20 years ago and I look back fondly at my few years of promiscuity, but equally I imagine there are girls that I had sex with that look back and think it wasn’t their best decision to shag me after drinking too much on holiday. Again I must say that it was always consensual and often I was pissed as well, I generally remember everything when drinking. I’m always been level headed and in control of my behaviour with or without alcohol.

I also slept with some fatties and mingers in that time which I don’t regret,  but I do question my decision making. I remember these fondly despite some flabby flashbacks, and from memory they enjoyed it more than I did so do they take advantage of me on those occasions?

Anyway, felt I needed to write this down  as the show made me think about those years and my own decisions, and question whether I’d been coercive or taken advantage, but I can’t say that I honestly believe I did either of these things.  But 20 years later would those women I met look back at the one night stand on the beach with regret, or blame me for leading a bar crawl or booze cruise and then shagging them on the balcony a few hours later.

I guess the same could be said for bouncers, DJ’s and barman all over the world.  Some jobs get you more sex, but does that does that mean that you’re taking advantage of the opportunity to attract more women and therefore have more sec, or does that mean that you’re taking advantage of the woman?

I’ve had a few beers so wanted to share my thoughts.

[timsussex]

I know that 20, 30 or 40 years ago things were different and some of the 'banter' that went on in the workplace would be instant dismissal now. In my defence the ladies gave as good as they got and I thought took it in good heart.

I have long believed that one of the (few) things the American justice system has got right
1) many states have a higher age of consent if the older person is "in authority"
2) some states have an absolute age difference for anyone under 18 ie 2 16 year olds is fine but a 16 year old and a 25 year old is illegal.

A 30 year old Brand having sex with a 16 year old is beyond creepy and should be illegal

[Colston36]

I’ve seen in the news that Russel Brand is accused of rape. It looks pretty convincing. I actually liked Brand, he’s pretty left wing but will take on the liberal left establishment and generally wins or at least makes some thought provoking sense. Is it me or does it all seem a bit odd that powerful anti establishment voices such as Brand, Tate and even Trump all end up accused of rape? I’ve no time for Tate but we was very outspoken and tbh I was sort of pleased to see the back of him. However it’s starting to look very odd when another high profile critic of the establishment is having his collar felt.

This may be hard for you to understand but "powerful anti establishment voices such as Brand, Tate and even Trump all end up accused of rape" because they rape people. Yes; it's that simple.

As for the ex president of the United Sates - one of the wealthiest most powerful people on earth - being anti establishment, that fact that someone is a criminal lying lunatic doesn't stop him being part of the establishment. You do realise he was born a billionaire?

[jackdaw]

I suspect most of us are pretty sure that he was aggressive/ assertive in his pursuit of rough sex, and used his tv/radio/film fame as part of that.

What happens to him now may depend on how general public react to what he did…even if it was legal. (Times have changed since the height of his promiscuity, and there’s a general appetite to project todays standards onto the past.)

[estats]

I think he knew these allegations (and many more) were eventually to come out and has carefully tried to craft this "I'm being attacked by the mainstream media" narrative over a number of years as some kind of defence.

I don't think he himself has hidden his alcohol and drugs past (addiction) nor supposedly a sex addiction. I think they are a toxic combination that would always lead to some unpleasant situations given his celebrity on-top.

Some of the accounts, if true, are grim and it sounds like he could face legal trouble. Also some of the accounts sound coercive and predatory. I don't think we can just say "different" times back then as a justification.

I hope all involved get a fair hearing in front of the law and justice. I hope the women involved who also may have been wronged get support and closure.

[Blackpool Rock]

100 % agree, never ever found him funny

Was he supposed to be 
Only found out earlier when I got the news flash pop up that he was described as being a presenter and comedian, passed my by that bit about supposedly being funny

He's always been a twat, still is a twat and likely always will be a twat 

In terms of the allegations I can't say that i'm totally shocked as after all IMO he's a twat but let's see what comes out of this as everyone should get a fair hearing, then in the morning let's hang the cunt 

[CanOfRedBull]

So Channel4 and The Times are now exposing Brand and let’s be clear they are making money from this story,  they are making money from these women’s accusations.  Wouldn’t it have been better to take all this evidence ( and there is a lot of it ) to the police first, allow the police to investigate and bring him in for questioning under caution before making a TV show and newspaper articles?

The same media organisations that celebrated him being ‘Shagger Of The Year’ and felt it was a title worthy of him are now the same people that are calling for him to brought down. 

[maxQ]

So Channel4 and The Times are now exposing Brand and let’s be clear they are making money from this story,  they are making money from these women’s accusations. 

What the hell does that mean, could you not say the same about any story

Did you see that Lucy Letby story, lets be clear the media are making money from that story too

[CanOfRedBull]

What the hell does that mean, could you not say the same about any story

Did you see that Lucy Letby story, lets be clear the media are making money from that story too

It means what it means.  They should have gone to the police first before making a TV show and newspaper articles about it.   You can’t compare Lucy Letby,  the news articles on her were after the police were involved, after she was arrested.

[RandomGuy99]

Seems like he had a sex addiction. Pretty worry accusations and his behaviour is always a bit odd.

[RedKettle]

So Channel4 and The Times are now exposing Brand and let’s be clear they are making money from this story,  they are making money from these women’s accusations.  Wouldn’t it have been better to take all this evidence ( and there is a lot of it ) to the police first, allow the police to investigate and bring him in for questioning under caution before making a TV show and newspaper articles?

The same media organisations that celebrated him being ‘Shagger Of The Year’ and felt it was a title worthy of him are now the same people that are calling for him to brought down.

So would you have preferred that they left it alone?  That seems to be the implication because if they are unable in your world to publish then there is never an investigation and he gets away with it, if he is guilty.

They usually pass evidence onto the police and often the publicity will give other victims the courage to come forward.

[CanOfRedBull]

So would you have preferred that they left it alone?  That seems to be the implication because if they are unable in your world to publish then there is never an investigation and he gets away with it, if he is guilty.

They usually pass evidence onto the police and often the publicity will give other victims the courage to come forward.

He won’t / can’t get a fair trial because of what happened on Channel 4 last night and what was published in The Times.  But that is not their goal,  they don’t really care about getting the police involved.  We don’t live a world where the police need to be involved. 

We now live in a post #metoo world where we have #cancelculture.   Just in the same way Philip Schofield has been cancelled,  or Kevin Spacey.  Russell Brand is now cancelled.   

Look at what happened to Kevin Spacey,  started as a trial by media,  by the time the police were involved everyone thought he was guilty, bang to rights.  Eventually goes to trial and he was found NOT guilty.   But when people say ‘Kevin Spacey’ you’ll always think he is a sexual predator.

[Blackpool Rock]

So would you have preferred that they left it alone?  That seems to be the implication because if they are unable in your world to publish then there is never an investigation and he gets away with it, if he is guilty.

They usually pass evidence onto the police and often the publicity will give other victims the courage to come forward.

Plenty knew enough about Savile but people / the powers that be / the media supressed it so that it constantly went away, well until after he died at which point it was all too late.

Things are dealt with a bit differently now post Savile in that many people in positions of power have been exposed for what the are and what they did

[Adoniron]

I don't think this will damage Brand much at all.

He's not going to be prosecuted so if he is guilty (and I'm not saying he is) he's got away with it.

As for being "cancelled" he's no longer mainstream anyway and his fans and followers will believe him and carry on subscribing.

Guilty or innocent, the rest of us always knew he was a dick.

[Jonestown]

As for being "cancelled" he's no longer mainstream anyway and his fans and followers will believe him and carry on subscribing.

His agent has already dumped him and I'd imagine Google / Youtube will be considering whether they want to continue hosting his channel.

[ulstersubbie]

He's a talentless total prat; that's not based on the C4/Times revelations I came to that conclusion years ago.

Totally agree with you. Never seen the appeal of this fellow but most modern "comics" are terrifyingly unfunny! 

[JontyR]

So Channel4 and The Times are now exposing Brand and let’s be clear they are making money from this story,  they are making money from these women’s accusations.  Wouldn’t it have been better to take all this evidence ( and there is a lot of it ) to the police first, allow the police to investigate and bring him in for questioning under caution before making a TV show and newspaper articles?

The same media organisations that celebrated him being ‘Shagger Of The Year’ and felt it was a title worthy of him are now the same people that are calling for him to brought down.

I get where you are coming from but I'd suggest you are being a little naive. The Sunday Times and Channel 4 aren't charities. They don't get funded to put this together. They have "invested" significant resource into this investigation already with no guarantee that it will lead to anything. And we are never, quite rightly, made aware of when they start something which never reaches the light of day when the evidence is not there or flimsy.

There was nothing to stop those concerned going to the police.

You have to hope the C4 and ST support their sources with suitable pastoral care. And also you have to hope that they, and other media outlets, never decide to publish something even when they know they need to get some return on the cash even when the evidence isn't really there....but that's why we have libel, slander and defamation laws. 

[JontyR]

His agent has already dumped him and I'd imagine Google / Youtube will be considering whether they want to continue hosting his channel.

Someone will pick it up. And he'll probably get better terms, at least in the short term.

[catweazle]

Can't stand the idiot (my personal opinion, ) but I think C4 and ST must be pretty sure of their ground to go ahead with the report; in-house  lawyers  would have been all over it before giving the go-ahead.  Shades of Operation Yewtree.

[Jonestown]

...... but I think C4 and ST must be pretty sure of their ground to go ahead with the report; in-house  lawyers  would have been all over it before giving the go-ahead.

That's what many thought about the recent Sun newspaper and BBC newsreader splash, then after initial publication they suddenly got cold feet and went quiet.

In the past in a case like this a dossier would be passed to the police for their consideration and action, now TV companies are looking for something to fill the Saturday night slot to compete for viewers for against Strictly Come Dancing etc, and to heck with anyone subsequently getting a fair trial.

[MLawro93]

Interesting seeing the political lines drawn over this. You have the like of GB News defending Brand but constantly vilify someone like Huw Edwards. I wish people who learn and realise that anyone has the potential of being a power abusing POS.

The evidence against Brand is stacking up, and for those apologists who constantly chime in with why didn't they go to the police, like come on...

We have a culture of looking the other way, or selectively choosing who to go after in the media. If you are on the right side, you get left alone. The second you step out of line, you have a target on your back. Does it surprise me Brand is scum? Nope. But it appears this was an open secret top-down, so why does it take this long for it to come out into the open?

[Jonestown]

But it appears this was an open secret top-down, so why does it take this long for it to come out into the open?

Perhaps because,  as I believe the the OP alluded, Brand has not long ago changed sides ?

[robbie54321]

A lot of the responses on this thread seem to not care about the allegations because he’s a twat?
Worrying times when allegations with no proof is ok as long as you think the person is a twat.
A lot of people think Nigal Farage is twat, Katie Hopkins is twat, Tommy Robinson is twat, shut their bank accounts and cancel them.

if you take on the worlds accepted narrative you risk losing every thing. 

If you believe that the world is flat or man didn’t walk on the moon, the twin towers was a mosad conspiracy you won’t get cancelled, maybe because that nonsense doesn’t effect the worlds elite.

You question covid, climate change, transgender, Brexit, reducing police powers or defunding the police, if you support racial integration rather than the new BLM racial segregation or even support Christian beliefs you risk being cancelled
 

I’m not saying Brand is or isn’t guilty but being a twat and not funny isn’t a reason to condemn him.

[MLawro93]

A lot of the responses on this thread seem to not care about the allegations because he’s a twat?
Worrying times when allegations with no proof is ok as long as you think the person is a twat.
A lot of people think Nigal Farage is twat, Katie Hopkins is twat, Tommy Robinson is twat, shut their bank accounts and cancel them.

if you take on the worlds accepted narrative you risk losing every thing. 

If you believe that the world is flat or man didn’t walk on the moon, the twin towers was a mosad conspiracy you won’t get cancelled, maybe because that nonsense doesn’t effect the worlds elite.

You question covid, climate change, transgender, Brexit, reducing police powers or defunding the police, if you support racial integration rather than the new BLM racial segregation or even support Christian beliefs you risk being cancelled
 

I’m not saying Brand is or isn’t guilty but being a twat and not funny isn’t a reason to condemn him.

There is proof and evidence though. Just watch the documentary. Witness testimony is evidence. When the story is then corroborated by multiple sources, it only strengthens the case. There is a reason why Brand is trying to get ahead of this

[Adoniron]

Can't stand the idiot (my personal opinion, ) but I think C4 and ST must be pretty sure of their ground to go ahead with the report; in-house  lawyers  would have been all over it before giving the go-ahead.  Shades of Operation Yewtree.

Brand is worth about £16m and can afford top lawyers. If he's innocent he will sue Channel 4 and The Times. If he doesn't sue......

[badsin]

A lot of the responses on this thread seem to not care about the allegations because he’s a twat?
Worrying times when allegations with no proof is ok as long as you think the person is a twat.
A lot of people think Nigal Farage is twat, Katie Hopkins is twat, Tommy Robinson is twat, shut their bank accounts and cancel them.

if you take on the worlds accepted narrative you risk losing every thing. 

If you believe that the world is flat or man didn’t walk on the moon, the twin towers was a mosad conspiracy you won’t get cancelled, maybe because that nonsense doesn’t effect the worlds elite.

You question covid, climate change, transgender, Brexit, reducing police powers or defunding the police, if you support racial integration rather than the new BLM racial segregation or even support Christian beliefs you risk being cancelled
 

I’m not saying Brand is or isn’t guilty but being a twat and not funny isn’t a reason to condemn him.

Didn't watch the documentary, so can't comment.
Other than that, I agree with pretty much everything you've stated here

[kuck]

...
If you believe that the world is flat or man didn’t walk on the moon, the twin towers was a mosad conspiracy you won’t get cancelled, maybe because that nonsense doesn’t effect the worlds elite.
...

FWIW, Mr Brand spews at least one of these views.

Hoping the documentary and the Times reporting encourage victims to come forward and take him to court where he can get a fair trial.
Hoping he doesn't just shout witch hunt over and over again, as is fashionable among nutjobs these days.

[Colston36]

A lot of the responses on this thread seem to not care about the allegations because he’s a twat?
Worrying times when allegations with no proof is ok as long as you think the person is a twat.
A lot of people think Nigal Farage is twat, Katie Hopkins is twat, Tommy Robinson is twat, shut their bank accounts and cancel them.

if you take on the worlds accepted narrative you risk losing every thing. 

If you believe that the world is flat or man didn’t walk on the moon, the twin towers was a mosad conspiracy you won’t get cancelled, maybe because that nonsense doesn’t effect the worlds elite.

You question covid, climate change, transgender, Brexit, reducing police powers or defunding the police, if you support racial integration rather than the new BLM racial segregation or even support Christian beliefs you risk being cancelled
 

I’m not saying Brand is or isn’t guilty but being a twat and not funny isn’t a reason to condemn him.

What does this mean? "racial integration rather than the new BLM racial segregation". When has BLM had anything to do with segregation? The letters stand for Black Lives Matter. But as you seem to think Tommy Robinson the Adolf Hitler fan is ok one has to question your grasp on reality.

[RedKettle]

A lot of the responses on this thread seem to not care about the allegations because he’s a twat?
Worrying times when allegations with no proof is ok as long as you think the person is a twat.
A lot of people think Nigal Farage is twat, Katie Hopkins is twat, Tommy Robinson is twat, shut their bank accounts and cancel them.

There is so much wrong with your post but I will confine myself with the above part.  Of course just because he is a twat he is not guilty and that is not what most of us are saying.  Personally I do think he is a twat and from the little I know about him I would not be surprised if he was guilty but that will be decided by the police and courts in time.

There is evidence here - not proof yet because that needs to be decided by the courts. However enough for there to be concern about his behaviour and to reinforce the views of those that think he is a twat.

The three people you mention are in my opinion twats and the latter two very nasty individuals who many decent organisation are not going to want to be associated with. Because based on their own actions and words they are nasty racist little fuckers.

Nigel is different and it was wrong that NatWest tried to close his bank account.  In case you missed it pretty much the whole of the establishment rowed in behind him, he was not debanked and senior heads rolled.  That is actually evidence that the "problem" you are trying to highlight does not in reality exist.

[bigden40]

There is proof and evidence though. Just watch the documentary. Witness testimony is evidence. When the story is then corroborated by multiple sources, it only strengthens the case. There is a reason why Brand is trying to get ahead of this

Allegations =/= proof and evidence

Recounting of your story =/= witness testimony

Have we learned nothing from other recent cases?

[timsussex]

The problem is some of more serious allegations took place some time ago in the USA, while the UK ones are unsavoury I'm not sure of any illegality and there may not be a court case
However the knives are out for Brand and I doubt we will see him on TV again
In fact the knives have been out for some time - which is probably why he moved back from USA and now  over to the internet

[Adoniron]

Allegations =/= proof and evidence

Recounting of your story =/= witness testimony

Have we learned nothing from other recent cases?

Evidence and proof aren't the same thing.

There is evidence but there isn't proof.

Witness testimony is evidence.

[bigden40]

Evidence and proof aren't the same thing.

There is evidence but there isn't proof.

Witness testimony is evidence.

An edited documentary choosing to present a story in the way that they choose isn’t evidence in a meaningful way.  There was also a great deal of nonsense in that documentary, reframing well documented behaviour as something more than it was.  The one that took the biscuit for me was the attempt to reframe the call with Saville as “pimping his assistant” when the reality appeared to be that he was stitching up Saville and getting him to be creepy on tape.

As for “witness testimony” this usually refers to evidence given in a court of law, under oath, by the actual witness, and subject to cross examination.  The “testimony” in the documentary didn’t meet that evidential standard.   Most of what was presented was a dramatisation of the account given to the journalists rather than direct statements from those making the allegations.

I don’t make any judgement on whether Brand is guilty or not, and I certainly won’t based on this journalism alone.  Serious allegations should be litigated in court, not by TV and social media.

I’m in the Brand is a twat camp, but I’m really sceptical of what’s going on here.  It does look like a coordinated effort.

[David1970]

A lot of the responses on this thread seem to not care about the allegations because he’s a twat?
Worrying times when allegations with no proof is ok as long as you think the person is a twat.
A lot of people think Nigal Farage is twat, Katie Hopkins is twat, Tommy Robinson is twat, shut their bank accounts and cancel them.

if you take on the worlds accepted narrative you risk losing every thing. 

If you believe that the world is flat or man didn’t walk on the moon, the twin towers was a mosad conspiracy you won’t get cancelled, maybe because that nonsense doesn’t effect the worlds elite.

You question covid, climate change, transgender, Brexit, reducing police powers or defunding the police, if you support racial integration rather than the new BLM racial segregation or even support Christian beliefs you risk being cancelled
 

I’m not saying Brand is or isn’t guilty but being a twat and not funny isn’t a reason to condemn him.

When you write Tommy Robinson, do you mean the criminal Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon?

I don’t think anyone here is saying he is guilty because he is a talentless twat, they are saying he is a talentless twat.

 

[Adoniron]

An edited documentary choosing to present a story in the way that they choose isn’t evidence in a meaningful way.  There was also a great deal of nonsense in that documentary, reframing well documented behaviour as something more than it was.  The one that took the biscuit for me was the attempt to reframe the call with Saville as “pimping his assistant” when the reality appeared to be that he was stitching up Saville and getting him to be creepy on tape.

As for “witness testimony” this usually refers to evidence given in a court of law, under oath, by the actual witness, and subject to cross examination.  The “testimony” in the documentary didn’t meet that evidential standard.   Most of what was presented was a dramatisation of the account given to the journalists rather than direct statements from those making the allegations.

I don’t make any judgement on whether Brand is guilty or not, and I certainly won’t based on this journalism alone.  Serious allegations should be litigated in court, not by TV and social media.

I’m in the Brand is a twat camp, but I’m really sceptical of what’s going on here.  It does look like a coordinated effort.

A written statement is evidence. Oral evidence given on oath is testimony.

The investigation by the Times and C4 has taken years and their lawyers will have been all over it before they published it.

However I agree that the women concerned should make statements to the police who can investigate and if appropriate prosecute and then we can all find out the truth.