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.

Exactly this. The fact that people are saying it’s because he discusses Covid vaccines online and this makes him some sort of guru is terrifying.

I mean, we're all aware of the issues with pharmaceutical companies, and it's reported widely across the mainstream media so this isn't exactly earth shattering news 😂😂

The problem with people like Brand is he's a grifter (like your Neil Oliver, Bev Turner, James Melville types who are today refusing to condemn their mate Brand and are again going after....Jeffrey Epstein). They know that by going one step further than the big corporations and going after an abstract group of elites and (((globalists))) they'll attract right wing and libertarian audiences. They are more financially lucrative than left wing zealots, hence Brand's pivot away from the left. Essentially he's set himself up as the pied piper of conspiracy theorists and is consequently able to line his pockets quite handsomely. And this is where the 'rape allegations are a stitch up' narrative is now coming from, which gullible fools - including on this thread - are lapping up. But we're the sheeple apparently.

What are you referring to? You seem to know very well but claim you don't, but then know again and then decide it's definitely not what I said but demand I agree I know. You're being unecessarily awkward instead of telling people you fundamentally disagree with what you consider to be conspiracy theorist bollocks.

Own it and stop being awkward for the sake of it.

I am asking for those people who keep repeating that this is a cover up to let the rest of us know exactly who they think is behind this smear campaign and why.

It’s a perfectly reasonable question. One which no one has actually been able to answer.

It’s very clear I think it’s bullshit, I haven’t hidden that at all. But if someone could come along and outline the details, maybe they could shine some light on what they think is really going on. If people are asking the rest of us to believe that there is something dangerous behind this, then it’s only right you give details. Names. Facts. If there are none, then that shows a hell of a lot.

I don’t know why you keep trying to challenge me. I’m not being obscure, my request is very clear. My intentions are very clear. I want to know who is the supposed mastermind behind this and what it is that Brand has revealed to make him a target.

Is that clear enough for you?

Yes, I do believe that Dispatches sent Channel 4 an FOI, because there will be a paper trail for this.

Do I believe that Channel 4 have checked all relevant information? No. Also, there may not be all that much to check. After so many years, emails will have been deleted, paper files would have been archived, and then automatically destroyed after 6 years.

I do agree that rumours spread easily. I’m just saying the people involved in producing Big Brother are very different to the people producing Dispatches.

Honestly, white middle class men with lots of money are the establishment if such a thing exists. RB and his ilk are the establishment, the actual privilege which comes with those characteristics. Allowing huge abuses of power….oh wait.

His mainstream career is over. He’s a fringe you tuber that no-cares about any more. There is nothing to silence apart from women. Honestly some people are quite scary how they buy into his rants.

This.

Witnessed his treatment of a woman first hand. He's a modern day Jimmy Savile. No control.

Under GDPR you aren't supposed to hold data indefinitely are you?

In the US big business is made from trial scientists. Phil Mcgraw first started this in the 90s. Psychologists will sit on the defence/prosecution side and try and find as an amenable jury as they can with the amount of strikes for a juror that they have.

There is a great TV series (admittedly this is a for entertainment series) called Bull that Phil McGraw was co creator on and it explains a lot of what they look for in a jury depending on the case.

I guess I'm in the minority here, but one thing that has always remained true through my life experience has been the saying that there's always 3 sides to a story.

I don't think RB is innocent, I don't think he didn't behave poorly, but I'm not sure if I believe 100% the way everything was laid out in last night's dispatches either.

I think it's naive for everyone to be pretending they definitively know one way or the other and that there's no grey area when people lie and stretch the truth all the time for all manner of reasons :S

But he's soooo intelligent because he uses big words and flounces around!!!!

Yes, I was wondering this – there must be lots if research into who to pick for what type of trial. I’m sure I remember reading somewhere that absolutely counter to intuition the best people (statistically) for an alleged rapist to have on their jury are middle aged women. (I would have imagined the exact opposite.) Apparently this demographic in the US is harshest in scrutinising alleged victims.

Very interesting to hear it is a whole dedicated area of research (and kind of astonishing yet not surprising). Might look up the programme if I get chance, thanks for sharing, fascinating.

I feel so sorry for his wife but I wonder what she was thinking marrying him?
He first had a fling with her when she was 19 and him 31 and he finished it. Was he treating her like crap as well? Then he must’ve met the 16 year old and we know what happened in the next ten years. Then she bumps into him and marries him as he’s got it all out of his system. What the hell, and it’s even worse that her sister is in show biz and probably told her what he was like. God, he must be riddled.

poor woman with young children and one due any day ☹️

I expect it's a bit of both.

He has a target on his back due to his large social media reach and anti establishment views, so ahead of the US election next year there's been a concerted effort to find dirt on him to turn him into a pariah.

However, that doesn't mean the dirt isn't real.

Also, no ' official complaint'was made. It looks like people went tontheir managers and supervisor's, but those people didn't take it forward. If they haven't lodged official complaints, why was that? They were prepared to complain. We're they warned about making an official complaint? Were they worried their careers would suffer? Did they think ' What's the point? Because they complained to their managers and nothing happened? Why destroy your life and career for something that no-one is going to take seriously?

Funny how he no longer has a sex addiction now he no longer has ready access to a stream of young, vulnerable girls coming to the filming of his show.

Sex addiction = exploitation addiction

I'd largely agree with that.

However we also have certain admissions from Brand himself and it's not a scenario of one persons word against another. There is a pattern of behaviour and some of that is documented on Live TV or radio. It wasn't editted for effect or the audience.

So that's why I lean much more to believing that the accounts of the women is far closer to the truth.

We also have accounts on record which are on record from years ago saying similar.

Certainly we know Dannii Minogue had a problem in 2006 but no one did anything to even protect female celebrities - when even Dannii is saying she had to put up with this shit - you kinda know there's an issue. I don't believe at 34 Minogue was naive to the celebrity lifestyle and working in music which is hardly known to be. Who else did she say similar about? Brand did nothing to reform his behaviour as a result of what she said. Nor did TV executives ask questions.

That's a BIG red flag for me.

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?
Dispatches are not Channel 4. Dispatches is made by a production company who are commissioned by Channel 4. There are strong links with a lot of the larger production companies to the commissioning channel, but ( as far as I know) all Channel 4 programmes are produced by external providers.

What influence does he have over the US elections?

Indeed, Channel 4 are not permitted to own any of the content of they commission, it’s all produced and owned by external companies.

Having said that, I think Ch4 knew what RB was doing. The media world is small and incestuous.

Reminds me of rasputin too.

Preferring to see justice prevail in a court of law does not make anyone a rape apologist.

Use of the phrase ‘rape apologist’ to attempt to stigmatise those who disagree with you is replacing debate with name calling.

We can be absolutely against rape yet still prefer victims use the legal system before contacting the media.

If we abandon the legal system what do we have ?

Accusations do not equal evidence no matter how much our emotions tell us otherwise.

The problem is the lack of faith in the justice system.

I knew someone who was raped and it was caught on CCTV. You could see her saying know. But her rapist was (or claimed he was) deaf and couldn’t hear her saying no. He was not convicted. This sort of story is not unique. Most rapes result in no sort of conviction for the rapist. They are incredibly hard on the victim who already has feelings of shame and worse. People are done with our justice system. It’s broken.

There are many hideous cases that required investigative jounrnalism to bring them to light (e..g, Saville, Rotherham) because of the systemtic enabling and covering up that occurs @graceinspace999

I completely agree with the points about going through the criminal justice system being the best option, and the problems that not doing this can lead to.

However, given a choice between no level of justice and continued risk from this person, or Brand having to (perhaps unfairly) deal with the consequences of this documentary being made, I'd choose the latter. What do you think?

He is a privileged person, with the kind of resources and power most of us can only dream of. I'm therefore more comfortable in him having to deal with the fall out of such a documentary, than say a random man accused of similar who worked as a school caretaker. We know he's incredibly litigious, and has already "lawyered-up" several times to silence victims.

They have identified five victims. One of the main points of the documentary is to enpower unknown victims to also report their experiences which could help build evidence for prosecution.