Russel has spoken

[Whyismyfacealwaysdry]

On Instagram, has anyone seen? What are your thoughts?

Of course not. They’ve believed the bullshit conspiracy nonsense.

here’s a little more info: https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-excess-deaths-covid-died-suddenly-793316776380

It is relevant because RB has been promoting “wacky vax theories” and claims the allegations against him are an attempt by “the authorities” silence him.

@WomblingTree86 I find the debate pointless as both sides will never agree.

RB has said that he is being targeted by the media because of his opinions and views regarding different conspiracy theories.

His supporters view the allegations as entirely false because they serve as evidence 'the establishment' is trying to silence him.

@Drivingone
I realise this but when you're knee-deep in conspiracy, you're not going to remove the film from your eyes by a few posters on MN.

You could say the same about any debate. If you think it is pointless don't read the thread.

Maybe the ones that are now knee deep in it will not change their opinion but not everyone's at that stage. It's not beneficial to let posters say there's an excess in sudden deaths if that's not true.

@WomblingTree86
I've stopped reading the thread but I keep getting tagged.
Whenever a conversation takes a left-turn down the conspiracy route, that's when the debate becomes pointless.

I dislike him, but I believe everyone has the right to defence and considered innocent until proven otherwise in the courts.

I don't agree that it's pointless to contradict conspiracy theories. It may not convince those who are knee deep, but they aren't the only ones reading the thread. This is a public forum and I think it important to contradict misinformation.

Of course, but why keep going over the same point?
The conversation just starts to go round in circles.

I'm bowing out now.
I think everything that needs to be said about this bloke has been said already.

Absolutely, though debate is still important.

It's not always about proving someone is wrong or right, but continuing discussion and encouraging thought and research is beneficial.

Do people keep going over the same point? I hadn't seen the point about sudden deaths before.

It’s interesting you commented the same two things I felt. The first is very difficult to articulate without being jumped all over, and clearly this isn’t a great place for that. It’s alarm bells for me that the women were essentially searched out over a long period of time, they did not choose to approach the press. We don’t really know whether their words were changed, or how the confessions were teased out. Anyone who watches any true crime will know that leading questions and ‘putting words into mouths’ are very common tactics when a particular narrative is being sought. And this is precisely why it’s important there is a legal process for this.

I also felt the exact mirroring of words from the stand-up clips seemed weird. It wasn’t just once or twice, but repeatedly. We know memories are unreliable, so I question as to whether these were the exact words the women used when speaking to the show or whether the show decided to mirror them for impact. Either way - it doesn’t seem accurate. Memory would have distorted the precise words so either they were being recalled after watching the stand-up repeats or they were being manipulated by the show. I got the impression the show wanted the audience to be all ‘omg it must be true because he said those exact words in the exact order!’ whereas I personally felt it did the exact opposite and made it less believable.

For disclosure, I have been sexually assaulted. I’m aware weird random details can get stuck on rote in your memory, but usually that’s something sensory like a smell or an image. Multiple words exactly replicating his stand-up from multiple women? No. At the very least it made me question the level of doctoring the show applied after the women had spoken to them. And that’s not to say the women were not truthful.

Multiple words exactly replicating his stand-up from multiple women?

Can you out line the instances? Because the only mirroring was from Alice about mascara running as I recall.

This comedian was approached for the show, as were many comedians she knows:

I’ve only seen it once, so no, off the top of my head I can’t, but there were definitely multiple. I just found it striking at the time.

Okay. I’m not sure what your point was behind the posting of this?

I just found it striking at the time

it can't have been that striking if you don't remember!

So you believe anonymous women without evidence but I’m expected to remember the precise things in a documentary I watched once when I wasn’t specifically looking FOR the purpose of remembering these things?

I see.

Did anybody see the daily mail article about Russell Brand moving in with a couple who were heroin addicts. He paid the man £50 to have sex with his girlfriend and spent the week taking drugs with them. Brands manager had to take care of the couple's baby because every one else was out of it.
It's becoming more and more evident that this nice guy persona is an act.. Absolute scum bag.

Or another way of looking at it is that Brand would, like many comedians, repeat lines many times both off and on stage. It’s a way of testing material. So perhaps it was a fetish, they wrote a joke about it, tried it out on different people, one of whom was the child he ‘allegedly’ orally raped.

Also, just how do you propose something gets investigated without seeking out people who may have witnessed or experienced the crimes? If you heard rumours that one of your team at work was a bully, how would you find out the truth?

Also, you can’t simultaneously hold a position where you doubt the women’s words but also believe them.

If the women were truthful, as you seem to be saying, then they were indeed raped and sexually assaulted by Russell Brand.

Why are you saying 'without evidence'?

To your first point, yes that is one explanation and I did consider this the first time in the documentary, but when it happened again it made me raise my eyebrows a bit more. I would also think there would have been explicit anecdotes over the years from women he’d slept with saying similar if it was as deeply rehearsed like that. But for me, and I recognise mileage may vary, I’m not trying to prove he is either innocent or guilty, I am trying to look at it the way you would be expected to look at it in law - does it contribute towards reasonable doubt? For me yes it does.

And yes, I absolutely can hold a position where I doubt the words in the documentary and believe them (though that isn’t my position, so this is moot) - the documentary could have a motive to show guilt and therefore choose words to fit with that narrative. That’s separate as to whether the women reported incidents that happened. Both could be true. The show did use dramatic techniques for affect - we know this much is true.