Russell Brand

[Wassapp]

AIBU to think... 'here we go again?'

Anyone watching? I've always said 'innocent until proven guilty' but also 'there is no smoke without fire'.

Having been sexually assaulted myself, one of the stories seem so similar to mine.

What's your thoughts?

This is the most confusing post, I know. I just don't know how I feel.

Honestly, remove Turing’s name from your mouth. There is no cause to even mention his name in the same vein as brand.

Plenty - hundreds? - of people knew what Savile was like when he was alive but he, like Brand, threatened legal action at every turn and guess what? NOBODY WITH ANY POWER TO STOP HIM WOULD LISTEN TO THE VICTIMS. It was eventually, after his death, the sheer quantity of them that forced action. And, as the stories emerged, there were plenty of apologists claiming the survivors were just after money and JS was a Saint on earth. Sound familiar?

Strange post. I am not sure of the legality of stating people have done something with no acknowledgement that it is alleged. That is different to defending Brand, which would be ridiculous, as I don't know him, the facts clearly need investigating and are extremely concerning. Bear in mind, most of us have been assaulted in some way and we wish to see justice.

I noted he hooked up with someone at an AA meeting.

Anyone who has endured a twelve-step program or two will be very familiar with his type. The thirteenth step is a massive problem.

I was going to mention this. Back in the dim and distant past I had some group support for an addiction problem (not AA but not dissimilar in approach) and was targeted by a very predatory ’Recovery Champion’ (someone who was viewed to have been successful in their recovery and had been positioned as a mentor to others.) Luckily I was able to avoid him, but there are an awful lot of vulnerable people in those sorts of settings who predators can really take advantage of.

Saville SA'd literal underage children. Brand was in a relationship with someone over the age of consent who consented to sex. They are not comparable.

Aaron Johnson was only 17 when Samantha Taylor, the 40 year old producer of the film he was acting in, got with him. She was in a position of trust and took his youth as they married and had children. I'd say this is worse than a fling. Awful that Samantha wasn't 'cancelled.' King Charles was 30 when he started hanging around 16 year old Diana. Again, he took her virginal innocence just so he could have beautiful heirs. People don't seem to mind these instances of predatory behaviour.

I'm not keen on large age gap relationships but if we call one person a sexual predator then a need to call out all the celebs that have done the same.

This.

@RamsesTheChub there are several similarities that bear comparison- the facilitation of the media, the abuse of power dynamic, the use of law and position to shut people up, the attempts to get it stopped that were unsuccessful, the open secret, the warnings circulated...

This isn't only about RB and a specific set of victims. It's bigger than that. It bears comparison with Saville, particularly the 'in plain sight' stuff.

So because he's articulate and sticks it to the Tories then he must be OK?

then wham this hits the news

There's nothing "wham" about it all. He's been very publicly demeaning women for 2 decades now, basically showing his arse and telling us who he is.

Keep an open mind, he is no Jimmy Saville.

Sadly, as was the case with Savile when he was still alive, RB's not been held to account for very, very similar behaviours. And like Savile, the warnings have been there but have been brushed aside until now because...power.

I suspect his use of the word ‘baroque’, meaning elaborate and fancy, will be a word either his lawyer used or he heard someone else using, thought it sounded clever and decided to use it himself.
RB is the definition of an attention-seeking grade A narcissist, very clearly a deviant and mentally ill, dressed up as a ‘big personality’ whose appearance of being ‘intelligent’ is based on talking faster and louder than anyone else in the room.
Intelligent people can spot the lack of substance in his frenetic, deviant ramblings.

@Anotherrname Samantha should be- I have no idea who any of them are, but if its similar then it should be addressed.

KC was groomed from birth into his wedding with Diana or someone similar.

Are the things he says now considered right wing or is it just the audience? Only because a few weeks ago I watched one of his videos, the one of him with Candice Owens (who is definitely right wing) and he seemed to be quite left leaning in his viewpoints/arguments to her

I only have that and older political videos to go on though, when he seemed very left wing, I haven't watched any of his more recent stuff other than the Candice Owens on which popped up at some point, I was just surprised to see him referred to as right wing now

I absolutely believe the women, I did quite like him back in the day but I thought it was just shock comedy, like a more story-telling version of Jimmy Carrs one liners. Looking back with this context is rather grim. And I only really saw the stand ups, his early career (that pissing video was absolutely grim), big brother stuff and the radio stuff I had no idea about (I vaguely remember seeing things about him and Ross, but I didn't read past the headlines or pay much attention to it)

I will hold up my hands and say- I liked him. I never watched his comedy at the time- but have seen quite a few of his more recent videos and thought he said some interesting things, I respected how he’d turned his life around, I thought he seemed genuine.

Having watched the documentary, I’ve no idea how anyone can defend him. Sure, a lot of it is very grim behaviour but not criminal. But the text message exchange between RB and the woman in LA- what on earth is his defence for his response to her message saying ‘when a girl says no she means no!!’. Why say ‘I’m sorry. I hope you’re ok’ ?? Surely if he was innocent he’d have replied ‘WTF??’ The fact it’s on record she went to a rape centre and got checked out too.

The situation with the 16 year old girl (when he was 30) is just absolutely vile, and really shows the kind of creep he is, my heart went out to her.

His poor wife and daughters. Though my sympathies are mainly with the victims-and I’m sure more will come forward now.

I assume Brand would have carried on with his wellness guru stuff which would have allowed him lots of contact with women who hung on his every word.

It's an old game and he plays it very well. I find it very hard to imagine he has changed oh reality, though his presentation certainly has.

I await his spiritual guidance awakening book/festival/shop any minute now for the extra credulous.

Nailed it, Bigcoat.±

@Locutus2000 yup. The only thing more dangerous than a narc, is a narc with a good knowledge of therapy speak & ready access to vulnerable people.

@Mountainhowl I'd say 'libertarian' but pandering to the right.

RB wasn’t in a relationship with the 16yo, she was groomed. She says she had no agency in the relationship and felt like a child whilst he was the grown up. He shoved his cock in her mouth without her permission and choked her.

That is enough to make him Savile but he also compounded this by RAPING other women.

Diana was 19 when she was in a relationship with Charles, not 16. And they married when she was 20.

I think we need to hold ourselves accountable as a society for watching, paying, laughing at, lapping up the content that's now so clearly abhorrent.

Misogyny should never make a good show.

Apologist.

You think its 'terrifying' that some of us are railing against the groupthink that RB is a criminal? By your logic, RB should've been marched off to jail at the conclusion of last night's documentary!

I have thought that about his daughters. It will be very hard

Has anyone seen his latest tik tok.. comparing himself to Jesus now!!
Narcissistic Wanker.

For the individuals of course one sexual assault crime is no worse than another - though as I say there's far worse where Savile's crimes are concerned - but you're effectively* implying that once you've raped once you're a rapist (yes) so it really doesn't matter if you add a few more.

*'effectively' because I recognise that's not what you're actually saying and you should realise no-one is suggesting because it's not comparable it doesn't matter.

But I didn't watch him, nor support him, pickledandpuzzled

Of course people mind these - Samantha is widely discretised and people are awful about Charles. Samantha is disgusting but I don’t solely blame Charles - that was a forced marriage that he didn’t want to enter into. Should he have done it? Of course not. Is it disgusting? Yes.