Russell Brand

[mills_and_bhuna]

Links please, I don't watch GB news, so not aware of what he discusses 

I don't watch it either.
I have come across the occasional clip on YT where he doesn't sound particularly unhinged to me.
I may not agree with everything he says but I'm not going to discount his views on principle.

[mills_and_bhuna]

Thats it you've opened up the flood gates
[have a look on hypersonics]
Requesting stuff from Boner
He'll be sporting one thats for sure so excited with your post, usually most UKPers ignore him
Prepare for the tidal wave of bollox 

You weren't seriously expecting me to keep quiet on this blatant attempt to silence someone who hasn't even been charged with any crime let alone  convicted and quite transparently on the basis of his views on Ukraine and Covid.

[jackdaw]

their accounts will find that in a few seconds, it will all be logged, and itemised.

Personally I doubt that very much…no firms expense records I’ve seen would be able to identify who used a taxis a dozen years ago. (And I worked in accounts in three firms bigger and more organised than the Beeb.)

[willie loman]

Personally I doubt that very much…no firms expense records I’ve seen would be able to identify who used a taxis a dozen years ago. (And I worked in accounts in three firms bigger and more organised than the Beeb.)

taxi companies bill the bbc etc with dates, times and journeys, the bbc may not have a system to retrieve that, which i doubt, but the taxi company will, surprised some driver hasnt come forward to  tell his story.

[Blackpool Rock]

Personally I doubt that very much…no firms expense records I’ve seen would be able to identify who used a taxis a dozen years ago. (And I worked in accounts in three firms bigger and more organised than the Beeb.)

Well apparently there's film footage of the taxi on it's way to Brand's place 

External Link/Members Only

[JontyR]

taxi companies bill the bbc etc with dates, times and journeys, the bbc may not have a system to retrieve that, which i doubt, but the taxi company will, surprised some driver hasnt come forward to  tell his story.

Taxi company may no longer exist. The driver may be dead.

Well I think this is the most problematic issue in some ways. When it happened did th dirver think to say anything then? Or was he advised by either his company or the beeb not to? The guy (or woman) in question may have been in fear of their job.

They may not come forward now because of fear of a backlash or they may be dead.

[jackdaw]

Taxi company may no longer exist. The driver may be dead.

Well I think this is the most problematic issue in some ways. When it happened did th dirver think to say anything then? Or was he advised by either his company or the beeb not to? The guy (or woman) in question may have been in fear of their job.

They may not come forward now because of fear of a backlash or they may be dead.

Or in the real world taxi drivers/ firms may not keep detailed records going back years of who they they took, where and when.

A couple of mates are taxi drivers, I’ll ask them.

[Jonestown]

Taxi company may no longer exist. The driver may be dead.

Well I think this is the most problematic issue in some ways. When it happened did th dirver think to say anything then? Or was he advised by either his company or the beeb not to? The guy (or woman) in question may have been in fear of their job.

They may not come forward now because of fear of a backlash or they may be dead.

If this was a regular thing there's probably going to be more than one driver involved , they are unlikely to all be dead.

[bigden40]

taxi companies bill the bbc etc with dates, times and journeys, the bbc may not have a system to retrieve that, which i doubt, but the taxi company will, surprised some driver hasnt come forward to  tell his story.

Does it matter whether the records can be retrieved or not?

AFAIK Brand is not denying that he dated a 16 year old for some months and that in itself is not a crime (creepy as fuck, but not a crime) and whether they find that a driver was picking her up or not is neither here nor there.  It’s just salacious.

[DastardlyDick]

If this was a regular thing there's probably going to be more than one driver involved , they are unlikely to all be dead.

But how many would remember an apparently "normal" fare after 20+ years?
ANother thing is how is it arranged? Does Brand call the Beeb and say "send a taxi to ????" Or, as I think is more likely, does Brand arrange it all and then send a receipt in as expenses ? 

[webpunter]

AFAIK Brand is not denying that he dated a 16 year old for some months and that in itself is not a crime (creepy as fuck, but not a crime)

Creepy as fuck indeed, not much !

The problem comes when he is supposedly coercive & using his relative position of power

& a complaint sent to the Met see if it makes it to Court

Whatevva, he's 'guilty as' in the Court of Public Opinion & those involved with him have dropped him like a hot potato

Supposedly 20k a week with YouTube down the drain, a good start

I dont care a monkeys that technically he hasn't broken any laws

Just like Phil & Huw using their positions of being in the media, wealth & power to create undue influence with very young people

Just 16, what a surprise 

Though Phil 1st met his to be BF when he was 15 & at drama school

Not exactly likely to be the strongest of characters all mixed up sexuality wise, Phil was able to think "i'm in the kill zone (pal) lock & load"

Huw less so as only pics vids facetime etc tho he was caught with his trousers down.  Literally 

Two of em are wrong uns & Huw got caught being incredibly stupid with anything further brought to an abrupt halt, i bet he was thinking phew TFFT 

[webpunter]

ANother thing is how is it arranged? Does Brand call the Beeb and say "send a taxi to ????" Or, as I think is more likely, does Brand arrange it all and then send a receipt in as expenses ? 

Highly likely to be on an account
Brand will make a call to a driver / the chauffeur company
Or could be one of his minions arranging this for him
3:45pm school gates
And dont be late !
Delivery to chez Brand tout-de-suite

[willie loman]

Or in the real world taxi drivers/ firms may not keep detailed records going back years of who they they took, where and when.

A couple of mates are taxi drivers, I’ll ask them.

taxi contracts for the bbc, nhs, parliament etc, are worth millions, they are not awarded to companies in south london operating out of a portacabin, records are on the computer and have been for years,

[Adoniron]

Does it matter whether the records can be retrieved or not?

AFAIK Brand is not denying that he dated a 16 year old for some months and that in itself is not a crime (creepy as fuck, but not a crime) and whether they find that a driver was picking her up or not is neither here nor there.  It’s just salacious.

Except that the 16 year old alleges that he later assaulted her during their relationship. Last time I looked that was a crime.

[Jonestown]

Seems that the 16 year old, to be known as “Alice”, has been talking to BBC Woman’s Hour programme where she says it was a BBC chauffeur driven car not a taxi, and she was picked up frequently. Her mother knew what was going on and tried to stop it. She doesn’t seem to mention the bit where she talks to the police. You have to wonder how the BBC knew who she was or how to contact her to set up the appearance on the show.

[JontyR]

Seems that the 16 year old, to be known as “Alice”, has been talking to BBC Woman’s Hour programme where she says it was a BBC chauffeur driven car not a taxi, and she was picked up frequently. Her mother knew what was going on and tried to stop it. She doesn’t seem to mention the bit where she talks to the police. You have to wonder how the BBC knew who she was or how to contact her to set up the appearance on the show.

She isn't in a witness protection programme or been given a new identity. Brand did work at the BBC and there are probably still folks there that were on the same show or on reception etc who knew who she was. It has been big news the last week. Folks who went to school or who knew the family will have known. There's going to be chatter on social media. "she went to our school" etc etc. Don't think it would be too hard to track her down.

taxi contracts for the bbc, nhs, parliament etc, are worth millions, they are not awarded to companies in south london operating out of a portacabin, records are on the computer and have been for years,

Exclusive contracts no. But there will also be preferred supplier lists, frameworks etc. Big companies will sub contract too. Also if there is an issue there will be fall back positions.  Big public sector orgs also have policies to support small and local businesses and encourage their suppliers to have the same.

[lostandfound]

Seems that the 16 year old, to be known as “Alice”, has been talking to BBC Woman’s Hour programme where she says it was a BBC chauffeur driven car not a taxi, and she was picked up frequently. Her mother knew what was going on and tried to stop it. She doesn’t seem to mention the bit where she talks to the police. You have to wonder how the BBC knew who she was or how to contact her to set up the appearance on the show.

That seems pretty straight forward IMO.

Woman's Hour producer contacts Channel 4 producer and asks "Could you ask 'Alice' if she would be interested in talking to Woman's Hour?"

[Jonestown]

That seems pretty straight forward IMO.

Woman's Hour producer contacts Channel 4 producer and asks "Could you ask 'Alice' if she would be interested in talking to Woman's Hour?"

Sure, as simple as that, or as this has all been four years in the making someone has put Team Alice together, manager, agent, PR, legal, as is now ready to rock & roll.

[JontyR]

Sure, as simple as that, or as this has all been four years in the making someone has put Team Alice together, manager, agent, PR, legal, as is now ready to rock & roll.

If Channel 4 and the Sunday Times had any regard to her pastoral care they would have advised her or put her in contact with someone who can act in accordance ot her wishes and in their best interests, thats aside from issues that may come from her own revisiting of this time in her formative years. It would be really poor form to get her story, rachet up the reponse and not have her supported.

[PumpDump]

If Channel 4 and the Sunday Times had any regard to her pastoral care they would have advised her or put her in contact with someone who can act in accordance ot her wishes and in their best interests, thats aside from issues that may come from her own revisiting of this time in her formative years. It would be really poor form to get her story, rachet up the reponse and not have her supported.

Oh yes, Murdock's Sunday Times, brought to you by the same company who hacked in to Milly Dowler's voicemail External Link/Members Only. Of course they have the interest of the girl at heart 

[JontyR]

Oh yes, Murdock's Sunday Times, brought to you by the same company who hacked in to Milly Dowler's voicemail External Link/Members Only. Of course they have the interest of the girl at heart 

That's a different point and argument entirely. There was a suggestion that there was a team being put together around the individual.

I may have read it wrong, and if so I apologise, but it seemed to suggest that this was a somewhat cynical attempt to exploit the situation. The comment was merely trying to put a point that such actions can be completely appropriate.

I can't say an organsiation other than the ST or C4 in this instance can I? It was them that led on the story.

[kuck]

From twitter
External Link/Members Only

If Jeffrey Epstein was politically active and repeated random right-wing talking points, he would be considered a hero by millions, and people like Tucker Carlson & Candace Owens would claim that the trafficking allegations were politically motivated.

You know it's true.

Seems if someone is a massive closet pedo or such, it would be good insurance. GBNews would have their back. 

[PepeMAGA]

From twitter
External Link/Members Only
Seems if someone is a massive closet pedo or such, it would be good insurance. GBNews would have their back. 

Based on what examples?

[kuck]

Based on what examples?

Mr Brand. The topic of this this thread.

[bigden40]

From twitter
External Link/Members Only
Seems if someone is a massive closet pedo or such, it would be good insurance. GBNews would have their back. 

Anonymous Twitter account fantasises that if someone who is dead acted in a way they didn’t actually in real life then they would be lauded by conservative talking heads. That’s a heck of a strawman. 

[mills_and_bhuna]

From twitter
External Link/Members Only
Seems if someone is a massive closet pedo or such, it would be good insurance. GBNews would have their back. 

I'm still trying to figure out what a right-wing talking point is.
Surely being anti-establishment and anti-corporate is left wing.
Which is basically Brand's position on most things.
And anyone who tries to claim being anti-war is a right-wing position is talking out of their arse.

[bigden40]

I'm still trying to figure out what a right-wing talking point is.
Surely being anti-establishment and anti-corporate is left wing.
Which is basically Brand's position on most things.
And anyone who tries to claim being anti-war is a right-wing position is talking out of their arse.

Brand is nowhere near being right wing, he’s still very much a lefty. 

He has a couple of weird conspiracy views but his positions are largely big on free speech, anti-globalist, anti-corporate greed, highly critical of corporate media, big pharma, etc. he’s been a big supporter of Assange and highly critical of UK gov.  One of his sins, politically speaking, has been willingness to talk to the other side and find common ground.

One “leftist” talking point I find really weird though is the idea that free speech is a right wing issue

[kuck]

Anonymous Twitter account fantasises that if someone who is dead acted in a way they didn’t actually in real life then they would be lauded by conservative talking heads. That’s a heck of a strawman.

Ridvan is far from an anonymous Twitter account.
External Link/Members Only
External Link/Members Only

Ridvan illustrates his point quite well on his twitter, take a look if you like.

A funny relevant meme also from him (Ms Owens on the left, and Mr Tate on the bottom right)
Hidden Image/Members Only

[PepeMAGA]

Mr Brand. The topic of this this thread.

Any pedos or right wingers?

[kuck]

Any pedos or right wingers?

Mr Brand covers a lot of right wing talking points (and conspiracy theories). I think he endorsed Trump. And also "asked questions" about the fairness of the election.
 
What is your opinion on his being defended by nutjobs of the right?
If you think it is a principled stance, like "innocent till proven guilty", remember these are the same people that shouted "lock her up".

Also see Mr Tate.

[DastardlyDick]

What is your opinion on his being defended by nutjobs of the right?

If I was Mr Brand, I'd be extremely worried that the only people trying to defend me in public are right wing nutters like Messrs Musk and Tate.

[bigden40]

Mr Brand covers a lot of right wing talking points (and conspiracy theories). I think he endorsed Trump. And also "asked questions" about the fairness of the election.
 
What is your opinion on his being defended by nutjobs of the right?
If you think it is a principled stance, like "innocent till proven guilty", remember these are the same people that shouted "lock her up".

Also see Mr Tate.

So much conflation.

Brand did not endorse Trump. He's more of a Bernie Bro.  He's currently backing RFK Jr.

The presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle of our legal system and defending it is not defending the individual. It should be defended.

And the people who shouted lock her up, actually didn’t.  Trump admin did not pursue political prosecutions against his opponents ……unlike his successor.

[PepeMAGA]

Mr Brand covers a lot of right wing talking points (and conspiracy theories). I think he endorsed Trump. And also "asked questions" about the fairness of the election.
 
What is your opinion on his being defended by nutjobs of the right?
If you think it is a principled stance, like "innocent till proven guilty", remember these are the same people that shouted "lock her up".

Also see Mr Tate.

No then.

[David1970]

He's currently backing RFK Jr.

I did not think my opinion of Brand could get any lower until I read this.

[Blackpool Rock]

So much conflation.

Brand did not endorse Trump. He's more of a Bernie Bro.  He's currently backing RFK Jr.

The presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle of our legal system and defending it is not defending the individual. It should be defended.

And the people who shouted lock her up, actually didn’t.  Trump admin did not pursue political prosecutions against his opponents ……unlike his successor.

Edited, thought it was the politics thread at the point of posting

[RedKettle]

This thread seems to be getting away from the central issue, which is I guess the intention of his devout followers, that he is accused of rape and sexual assault and using his position to facilitate that.  He is of course innocent until proven guilty but there does appear to be a lot of evidence, initially from a 4 year careful investigation, that justifies some concern from organisations that worked with him.

In addition his behaviour in the past and things he has said also support the sex pest allegations - but do not prove it.

All the rest is a smoke screen and I would suggest those putting it up might reflect how they will feel if he is proven to be a rapist and to have abused his position to take advantage of young women/girls.

[David1970]

Trump admin did not pursue political prosecutions against his opponents ……unlike his successor.

1 Please stop trying to derail this thread about Brand, to deflect attention away for him.

2 If you want to lie about Trump there is a political thread to do so.

[Blackpool Rock]

This thread seems to be getting away from the central issue, which is I guess the intention of his devout followers, that he is accused of rape and sexual assault and using his position to facilitate that.  He is of course innocent until proven guilty but there does appear to be a lot of evidence, initially from a 4 year careful investigation, that justifies some concern from organisations that worked with him.

In addition his behaviour in the past and things he has said also support the sex pest allegations - but do not prove it.

All the rest is a smoke screen and I would suggest those putting it up might reflect how they will feel if he is proven to be a rapist and to have abused his position to take advantage of young women/girls.

Perhaps a shrewd tactic on his part to put enough info out there so people know he's a bit "Edgy" then he can hide in plain sight as his actions get dismissed as it's only Brand and everyone knows what he's like as he's even admitted it so it must be OK

[Blackpool Rock]

1 Please stop trying to derail this thread about Brand, to deflect attention away for him.

2 If you want to lie about Trump there is a political thread to do so.

Yes I also replied thinking it was the politics thread then edited the entire post

[Iloveoral]

Keep all the political stuff in the correct thread please. 

[mills_and_bhuna]

Jumped the gun. Saw stupid comment. My bad

[bigden40]

1 Please stop trying to derail this thread about Brand, to deflect attention away for him.

2 If you want to lie about Trump there is a political thread to do so.

Tbh I replied to kuck who took the thread in that direction.

And lol at your point 2. I bet you’re not even being ironic.

[daviemac]

Tbh I replied to kuck who took the thread in that direction.

And lol at your point 2. I bet you’re not even being ironic.

Does that mean you haven't got a mind of your own and can't decide for yourself that political posts on this thread are not allowed.

Other people have read the posts on here but quite sensibly ignored those that aren't allowed.

[webpunter]

External Link/Members Only

Of Brand’s alleged behaviour, Kumar claimed that
“this is a well-known open secret in the comedy circuit”.
“It’s been something that’s been talked about, to my knowledge, in the last five years
It’s been pretty openly discussed in the comedy industry
I think I remember first hearing about it in mid-2017,” he said.

Asked by his podcast co-host Coco Khan if he knew that Brand would be the subject of the joint investigation ahead of its release, Kumar replied: “Yes.”

Kumar then posed his theory that Brand’s career in the UK started to “dry up” around the time word started to get out about his alleged actions.
“I think if you look at Russell Brand’s IMDb page, you see that his television work in Britain starts to dry up around 2018, 2019,” the Hello America presenter noted
“And that’s simply because increasingly people were just not willing to work with him"

Reading the other parts of the article while people in the media were unable to name Brand through fear of legal action they were able to achieve the same, of sorts

Kumar must know he's on solid ground to make these statements
Just like The Times & C4 Dispatches

Adapating a great footy quote by Mick McCarthy [about it not being a red card], IMO Brand is a wrong un as long as i have a hole in my bum 

[Marmalade]

But wasn’t he always a bit of a wanker? And a druggie to boot? Never really found him very funny or likeable. But tastes vary.

[Jonestown]

External Link/Members Only

Of Brand’s alleged behaviour, Kumar claimed that
“this is a well-known open secret in the comedy circuit”.
“It’s been something that’s been talked about, to my knowledge, in the last five years
It’s been pretty openly discussed in the comedy industry
I think I remember first hearing about it in mid-2017,” he said.

Asked by his podcast co-host Coco Khan if he knew that Brand would be the subject of the joint investigation ahead of its release, Kumar replied: “Yes.”

Kumar then posed his theory that Brand’s career in the UK started to “dry up” around the time word started to get out about his alleged actions.
“I think if you look at Russell Brand’s IMDb page, you see that his television work in Britain starts to dry up around 2018, 2019,” the Hello America presenter noted
“And that’s simply because increasingly people were just not willing to work with him"

Reading the other parts of the article while people in the media were unable to name Brand through fear of legal action they were able to achieve the same, of sorts

Kumar must know he's on solid ground to make these statements
Just like The Times & C4 Dispatches

Adapating a great footy quote by Mick McCarthy [about it not being a red card], IMO Brand is a wrong un as long as i have a hole in my bum

The BBC sock puppet Nish Kumar being quoted in The Independent, not sure that's an expert opinion I'd like to rely on in court.
Thing is, looking at Brand's personae and lifestyle at the time, most blokes would form the opinion that he did the deeds as alleged, or if not he has done other things just as bad, and that the law should take its course, better late than never. However what needs to be explained and understood is why the BBC, Channel 4 and Times newspapers have formed an alliance to pursue the matter, and why the chair of a government select committee is writing letters to online media companies in terms strongly suggesting Brands channels should be demonetised, and further asking why GB News and X (twitter) are showing support for Brand.

[SoapyTW]

However what needs to be explained and understood is why the BBC, Channel 4 and Times newspapers have formed an alliance to pursue the matter, and why the chair of a government select committee is writing letters to online media companies in terms strongly suggesting Brands channels should be demonetised, and further asking why GB News and X (twitter) are showing support for Brand.

Quite a lot of people that you would expect to come down hard on Brand are publicly questioning what is happening here. The most notable being Rose McGowan - one of the key people from the #meToo movement.

So there's something strange going on. When these rules are being bent in order to push a narrative, it's almost like Icarus flew too close to the sun. He's a low lying fish and not one of the truly powerful so he can be thrown to the wolves. I don't know if he's guilty. I don't know if he's innocent. That's not what this is about. This about driving us further apart. And mainstream media and media outlets protecting people on a higher up level, from true consequence from what they're really doing and what they're really getting away with.

One thing I find really odd here (besides the timing), is that our investigative news industry is pretty much dead these days for the most part. Lots of storyies and allegations (mainly political - won't mention here) that they could put the effort into investigating, but you never really see it these days.... except for stories like this.

I think it's important to spit this into two parts 1) Brands behaviour, and 2) the medias behaviour. It's still possible to deplore what Brand is acussed of, and at the same time, question the govt + media outlets.

[Marmalade]

Should we perhaps question the ‘moral backdating’?

Righting current wrongs is one thing — keeping women away from Brand because he is seen as a danger seems wrong: if the companies want to hire him then they should take measures to ensure he can’t intimidate any women also employed. Clearly if he has raped or caused real harm he should also have to face up to it.

Much of Brand’s so-called humour echoes locker-room humour by males making cock jokes, ok between males but fucking rude to use routinely against women.

But backdating can go too far. Toxic masculinity is a bad phrase but basically it means males infringing the rights of women by their words or actions. It might be ‘acceptable’ as part of a comedy routine that didn’t cause actual harm even if it were in poor taste: but backdating it to a time where society sadly considered it ‘normal’ has problems. Instead of preventing further harm it too often turns into virtue-signalling and money-grabbing claims against wealthy celebs in the public eye. Prevention is more important than revenge.

The Me Too movement achieved a lot of good but then went too far, hindering normal interaction between the sexes. Like the woman who claimed sexual harassment against a man who touched her shoulder in a coffee shop to indicate there was a server free and she was next in the queue. 

[Squire Haggard]

But wasn’t he always a bit of a wanker?

A bit of an understatement. The Andrew Sachs episode proved this IMO. Ditto for Jonathon Ross.

His massively overinflated ego and motormouthed narcissism needs to be taken down a peg or two. That could be happening right now. As for the allegations, I dont know how much truth there is in them. A clearer picture should emerge eventually.

[Marmalade]

A bit of an understatement. The Andrew Sachs episode proved this IMO. Ditto for Jonathon Ross.

His massively overinflated ego and motormouthed narcissism needs to be taken down a peg or two. That could be happening right now. As for the allegations, I dont know how much truth there is in them. A clearer picture should emerge eventually.

Has J Ross got the bullet as well? What did he get up to?
I never liked Brand, but Ross was ok when he did the film reviews. Must say I don’t really follow all the other stuff that people get up to. Both men seemed a bit obsessed with their own cocks.