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.

Was Katherine Ryan talking about RB in her video.

She said in a video that there is a comedian who is a sexual perpetrator. She said she said it to his face on a gameshow they were both on, but the gameshow cut it out before it was aired.

What I've learnt - to my cost - on several occasions in my life, is that people will put up with all manner of bad behaviour so long as you're giving them what they want. They'll laugh and get into it and enjoy the anecdotes and the craziness and the mayhem as long as you're going your job well, but the minute you're not, you're fucked. They'll wipe their hands of you without a second glance.

Russell Brand, My Booky Wook

All this crap about being an activist is so that he can play the Julian Assange card. Cynically, and I am, I think he only dropped off the radar, got and stayed married, even had kids, definitely found wellness, because he knew all this was coming.

Dirty sleazy scumbag.

Does the nanny-cam definitively show the dog stealing the bacon? Did the dog leave tooth marks and paw prints?

If not:

You, your husband and neighbours can point fingers at whoever you like, accuse them of whatever you like.

You can all describe how the dog has a satanic expression and how you all always knew he was a despicable evil bacon-robber but it’s still accusations.

*Was Katherine Ryan talking about RB in her video.

She said in a video that there is a comedian who is a sexual perpetrator. She said she said it to his face on a gameshow they were both on, but the gameshow cut it out before it was aired.*

It was as a toss up between him and David Walliams at the time. I think the former, but I wouldn't say the latter was entirely off the hook either.

Has she been on a game show with both?

doesn’t that equal three years of re trauma for the women?
Two of the women only came forward/were introduced to journalist this year.

1. Early 2019 Sunday Times made aware of allegations.
2. Start of 2021 Alice got in touch (alleged oral rape) who had contacted his book publisher and been accused of a money grab four months prior.
3. April 2023 a contact introduced a journo to Nadia (alleged rape).
4. Later this year, the paper spoke to Phoebe (alleged attempted rape).
5. Jordan declined to be interviewed.

She did a comedy roast up against Russell Brand.

Danni Minogue also wasn't a fan.

I have seen an alleged screenshot of a message (to one of the many women reached out to) from a journalist at the Times asking to speak with a TikToker as they'd had a ONS with RB.
You can call that proper journalism.
Or you can call that proactively contacting as many of the hundreds of women he's had sex with, to try and find people to fit your narrative. nail the bastard

The editors of the documentary have been through all RB's warts-and-all memoirs and all of his stand-up, to find soundbites and material that fit (and I could have done it easily, having seen his Shame stand-up, the gagging blow-job material was the first thing that came to mind). But would you have had a bad edit if you never said or wrote all that in the first place?

That is NOT to say that it shouldn't have come out. In some ways, the documentary felt like an anachronism. It felt like it could have been an expose from twenty years ago. No surprise there, as some of it is historic sex abuse.

The "tell us your experience/call line" at the end of the documentary is a fishing exercice but I would be amazed if you didn't have more victims coming forward in the next few days. Guardian have the same on an article touting for stories. Amnesty have asked women to come forward too.

You can have RB being an enemy of Murdoch and him still be a rapist.
You can have victims be girlfriends of RB and still be raped.
You can have said victims seek closure from him without £/$ being the motive.
You can have 996 women consenting but 4 not will still make him a rapist.
You can be a reformed character father of 3 and yet still have been a rapist.

I’d just like to take a moment to say that the Establishment are really very bad and They do very bad things.

If you could all please bear that in mind if ever I’m accused of a crime.

Cheers.

Preface by saying I do think he has in the past at least harassed women and not respected boundaries. Etc.

They/ establishments are: governments, the capitalist class upper echelons ie the largest accumulators of capital, the 1%, big business, the top of the financial sector.

‘The truth’ is that many people have been led into leading a life they are not happy with, that there may be a better way to live, that we have been turned into capitalist drones, locked into an unhealthy cycle of materialistic misery that serves only the top 1%. That the people have been given a red pill and that a revolution is needed. That there is a path to a more spiritually awakened life.

Two things can be true at the same time. That he formally was a misogynist/ harasser/ alleged abuser, and, a lot of what he now says is true.

100% this. It'd be funny if it wasn't so depressing. The only thing Brand is a threat to is school girls and vulnerable women.

That's okay, the likes of Katie Hopkins, Laurence Fox and Andrew Tate will come to your defence!

All of his former friends and colleagues - Jonathan Ross, Jimmy Carr, David Baddiel, Noel Fielding - are all saying nowt. His sister-in-law has deleted a supportive heart.

I don't blame the comedy circuit for saying nothing as they'd have to admit only Katherine Ryan, Sara Pascoe, Fern Brady, Daniel Sloss or Adam Rowe have.

I am reserving opinion until the time the case is tried, I think its disgraceful that C4 allowed this to air. I saw the documentary and I didn't see anything that suggested that any of it was 'rigorously and forensically scrutinised by...experienced legal counsel before any of it aired'. I don't think it was, however either way, RB deserves due process, as anyone would.
This reminds me of the people who suggested that Amber Heard had no voice and was powerless, its the same people on social media such as 'X' suggesting that he is definitely guilty before he has been tried, yet, he has had no voice and its not even in court - if, indeed, it gets to that stage.

Can't wait for the C4 and the times to realise their investigative journalism into who was on Epsteins list. We are waiting.

I have a close relative who is part of one of the groups you’ve mentioned. Believe me, none of them give a toss what Russell Brand says on his YouTube channel. None of them think he is a threat. And none of them would orchestrate his downfall over a long period of time that involved getting various people, celebrities, comedians and companies to issue out warnings via multiple mediums across the last decade or so. Because that is what is being suggested. That they asked Dani Minogue to write about it 10 years ago, and Katherine Ryan to mention it several years ago, and someone to send a text message warning about his behaviour 5 years ago, and for a group of comedians to set up a WhatsApp group discussing him 8 years ago.

The suggestion is that he is such a threat, even before he started his YouTube channel, that this extremely detailed and long term plan has been activated. But those I know in one of the above industries couldn’t give a toss what he comes out with. So why would they bother?

Wouldn't you be better off in the comment section of that conspiracy theorist crank Houseinhabit?

He had a big following, and the difference is that people listened to him. He is a wealthy and successful man, even though he seems to have got there by going around the world acting like a cartoon. I don't know whether he was a threat because I didn't watch him, but it is one of the theories and we aren't in court - there's no arrest so I am reserving any judgement until such a time as this is a proven act of assault

But the documentary explained why they included the sending of girls to dressing room was included. It’s also been explained several times on this thread. The staff on the show felt that RB picking out girls from a menu created an atmosphere of permissiveness which escalated in more dangerous ways, because RB then targeted a junior member of staff, where there was a clear power imbalance.

Can you explain why you think this undermined the allegations?

You don't honestly think that lawyers from all parties have not spent hours and hours and hours pouring over every accusation that was printed and broadcast?

A small news story is always fact checked by lawyers before broadcast. This will have had so many lawyers looking over every part of it. And if any of it was not completely evidenced you can be damn sure that Brands lawyers would have had it culled (like they have before).

You cannot honestly belive that any print media or broadcaster can just print/air anything they want to say without any evidence. It does not happen!

With the appalling low conviction rate for rapes reported (as low as 1%, according to one study), I'd say the legal system has abandoned women. And having supported a friend through a rape trial, it's utterly traumatic for the victim. I don't think I'd bother, tbh.

I totally get why, when the perp is a celebrity, it's preferable to use the media. At least that can give the woman some sense of control.

I am reserving opinion until the time the case is tried
I doubt that will happen. The most serious offences, with the strongest evidence, happened in the US. Even if they have the appetite to investigate him, he’ll just remain in the UK to avoid it all.

😂 I know, it’s so dum.

The second we start saying 'such and such a person is white, male, middle-class and rich therefore we can lower the bar of process and necessary proof to find him guilty, it is the end of our democracy.

Except I didn't say this in the slightest.

I pointed out that in sexual abuse scandals like Rotherham and Saville, reports to the police were ignored time and time again. The only thing that did trigger criminal justice involvement was investigative journalism, which brought the issue to light. This is what has happened here - we know some of his (currently known) victims did try to report it.

I agreed that this way of proceeding is not ideal - but, 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? @DysonSpheres

Main allegations:

2005 16 year old Alice. (RB 30 yrs old)
Forced deep-throating. Removal of condom. The latter is significant when it comes to separate evidence from Nadia.
(their relationship lasted 3 months)

Defence - in a relationship + consensual/legal. They'd say she went after him three times for money-grab. They could claim her evidence has been based on watching his stand-up. Bad sex/back of neck pressed down but thought consented/breath play defence.

Family member corroborates. Grooming in hindsight.
She contacted his book publishers 2020 for an apology.

Defence would also talk of her going into TV later as a career/her Mum driving her across to a "predator" and her hurt at being cheated on/humiliated leading to revenge.

2005/6 24 year old Runner Rachel.
Flashed at/sexual harassment on set.
(they had a relationship later)

Defence - why would she enter into a relationship with her harasser? No record of complaint to production company.
(Endemol no records)

2007 Jordan Martin.
Forced fingering.
(their relationship lasted 6 months)
She wrote a book about it in 2014.

Defence - tempestuous relationship/consensual- she was making £ from it (story in tabloids/publication of novel)

2012 Nadia thirties. Raped without condom.
(they had slept together previously)
Medical report/text messages. Most damning of all the women - even if argued she was saying No to condomless ex, that still equates to rape.

Defence would state she had had sex with him before/wanted evidence to sue him/bag being trapped by a painting flimsy/knew she was going over to "cuddle"/poor decision making from her own text.
She decided against criminal/civil action.
She sent a letter to Brand later.

2013 Colleague Phoebe twenties. Attempted rape. Five people corroborate she told them of incident.

Defence would jump on their previous liaison and claim she was motivated by jealousy. Also that nothing actually happened and three of the bystanders didn't comment.
(they had had an earlier relationship)

Plus toxic/naked/sexualised behaviour in general/across shows.

If Brand does have evidence to refute the above then he needed to provide it quickly. He did have eight days.
But as anyone who knows the system (watch Prima Facie - it just about sums it up) knows, the defence will go on the attack as above.