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.

And @RamsesTheChub they probably targeted him because they knew he was a rapist but they needed more evidence. Hence working on it for three years. Three years ago Brand wasn’t talking about the Covid vaccine and revealing all its secrets because it’s barely bloody existed.

😂😂😂

Then why did they allow over 2,000 posts speculating as to who the latest child-abuser or rapist about to be outed would be?

This is where he is admittedly a bit clever. Seed some little nuggets of truth that will chime with his audience, then spin it into something that suits the conspiracy narrative the audience is geared towards believing.

Does he make money out of this wellness and conspiracy stuff?

Just seen a article in the Times.. The Met are speaking to the reporters involved and will investigate.
Hopefully the women involved will be heard and Russell Brand is held accountable.

Ah, so you weren't asking a question you were just waiting to pounce with your own bile?

Your intentions weren't so well hidden 😉

‘been very vocal lately about the establishment. Stitch up’

he pissed off online because of his behaviour- no-one wanted to work with him anymore. But now of course he can turn that into a whole red pill ‘ I saw the light’ shite.

I served on a jury and as far as I’m aware we weren’t screened in any way. We certainly weren’t questioned on our views prior to selection.

Because that’s just the point - they see no risk here.

Don't disagree, but perfectly reasonable to question why people who stood alongside, aiding and abetting his behaviour, waited a decade to act upon it.

Channel 4 made big bucks from the kind of behaviour Brand displayed, I would argue still do.

So another person who cannot articulate who these phantom establishment bodies are then. Say what you want about me, but it doesn’t make your argument any stronger.

You'd think the reporters would've spoken to the met and got them to investigate in the first place.

More posters tying themselves up in knots to defend him, for some reason.

Removing a condom without telling your sexual partner you are doing so is also considered sexual assault. You cannot give informed consent if you believe you are having sex with someone who's using protection but they are actually decieving you.

Why does this need saying on MN?

It’s perfectly reasonable to question everything your government does, of course it is.

But that doesn’t explain why ‘they’ would launch a smear campaign against him.

And yes Channel 4 and the BBC have questions to answer. No one is denying this, this is part of the reason why this is surge huge news to many. The enabling. We know all this. But that’s not what his followers are saying and nor is he. They are all claiming it’s a huge smear campaign because of his ‘truth telling’. And I am asking people on this thread to articulate exactly who ‘they’ are and exactly what it is that he has been revealing. So far, stuff about lockdown and vaccines is nothing new or special. Nor is it exclusive.

Channel 4 is a big company. The team that commission programmes like Big Brother are different to the team that commission programmes like Dispatches.

The people who produce the news would have little dealing with the creators of Big Brother.

They’re chalk and cheese and would rarely mix.

I think we're in agreement: the media are all fiercely independent, there are no think-tanks or non-governmental institutions with influence and the British government only ever acts in the interests of every person in the UK.

All the more reason Dispatches/the Times should've gone to the police as opposed broadcast/print.

You'd think the reporters would've spoken to the met and got them to investigate in the first place.

@Janiie

Better late than never:) Hope the victims get some justice.

Can't wait for when the anti-establishment Brand and Lozza and his mates topple Them. Cos obviously this new world order they seek will be so much fucking better when these knobbers are in charge.

I've always found Brand's word salad style is designed to be intellectually intimidating and make 'mere mortals' feel like they can't join the conversation at the same level because they don't do frilly words and flamboyance to the same degree. Basically it's all style no substance.

And ultimately Brand's grievance against the establishment is that it chewed him up and spat him out when he didn't conquer the US long term. Mainly cos his style grated and everyone began to see through the inappropriate act. And he was binned off like a nobody. He only got the gig ultimately because he married Perry.

And being a narc, this hit him hard and he couldn't deal with it. In part because he'd spent years in the UK with everyone pandering to him and saying how edgy he was and by the sound of it, pimping young women to him. Then suddenly the bubble burst.

I find it notable that he really hasn't done much on British TV since 2017 when Weinstein happened. Keeping in mind the concept of an open secret about his behaviour in TV circles (which are surprisingly small - everyone knows everyone else).

Instead of taking responsibility for his actions, being the narc he is, Brand's only option in keeping with his ego is to lash out and blame this blob of the establishment which is starting to think more about safeguarding more and think about inappropriate conduct, because of various scandals that have blown up.

Brand has become a relict who no longer has relevance in the way he did. He peaked and he can't cope with it. He's an addict acting in the way addicts do - by disassociating and blaming others for his own actions.

Brand is in this mess because of his own choices. Let's not say any different. A man who is shown on camera rubbing his crotch on an audience member, saying sexualised things about colleagues and cosying up to Saville about the availability of women as commodities is running the high risk of becoming a cropper at some point. Brand has always been a risk taker.

His luck ran out finally. The gambler can only carry on for so long before the house wins.

But the house is not a global elite. It's the public whose tastes and preferences change and you have to cater for them. Brand doesn't get this. He still is in a bubble where he is put on a pedestal by his fans which is detached from the rest of the world.

Brand is like a 70s comedian who found their humour didn't work as the times changed. He was the acceptable 90s version of them. Time has caught up with him. He's not worked it out yet.

these are very serious allegations which seem to be 💯 true. Where are the police in this?

not only does my heart break for the 5 in the programme but who knows how many more behind them.

and let’s certainly not forget his wife and innocent young daughters who have now been stained for life.

it’s a complete disaster

3 years ago the 16yo he abused went to RB’s PR agency to complain about him and she was aggressively warned off.

3 years ago Dispatches started this investigation.

Is this a coincidence? I doubt it. I suspect she found the right people to talk to after that aggressive warning.

People like Russell Brand, Prince Andrew, Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell are too arrogant to realise that those teenage girls they rape and abuse will get older and stronger and they will eventually talk.

One side builds him up, promotes and covers up behaviour

Some years later the other side exposes that

Feel like we’ve been on a channel 4 ride

Again, stop flapping. I haven’t said any of those things at all. In fact I agreed with you RE Channel 4 and I included the BBC in that.

But this ISNT what I’m referring to and you know that.

Apparently it is not grooming due to her age. Legally she can bring no case for grooming. I would also see her parent's actions as consent in regards to grooming.

In practice of course a lot will be made of her age and C4 well know it.

I do agree that the age of consent should be raised to 18 to protect young people. Especially those with wotless, parents. 18 makes things very clear and leaves no ambiguity.

Did you believe the line that Dispatches (i.e. Channel 4) sent Channel 4 an FOI request which Channel 4 opted to reject, but assured Dispatches that Channel 4 have checked all the relevant documentation and can confirm Channel 4 did nothing wrong?

It might be a big company, but compartmentalised organisations are very good at allowing wrongdoing without any accountability and I don't for a second believe rumours in the corridors of these organisations don't spread. Otherwise... how on earth did Victoria Derbyshire know all about the contents of last night's programme on Friday?

In certain situations the age of consent IS effectively 18.

It depends on the context and it doesn't necessarily mean you will be charged in a criminal court. But you can lose your job or volunteer place because it is viewed as an abuse of power.

This is the telling bit for me and where employment contracts and the law could be tightened.

But it's worth pointing out we have laws on coercive control but these are very poorly understood by the police, courts or even the family courts.