Russell Brand accused of rape, sexual assaults and abuse: The Times/Sunday Times story

[BrontëParsonage]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d4d93e74-5478-11ee-bc18-cbdd58145dc6?shareToken=b3cd34ae6268daad4741e6c092ceac97

I think the article has more details. I've seen quotes from the article that weren't included in the programme. The programme included a lot of footage of RB being vile which I guess won't all be cover in the article.

Has anyone both read the Times article and watched Dispatches?

Yes, I did. More detail in the programme, scene setting etc.

The article is harder hitting, because it focuses on the alleged assaults.

mermaid your post is very eloquent and dignified and expresses what I am trying to say so badly.

I also heard BBC radio four reporting it early this morning. It talked about his “dark demon eyes” as he had sex and the 16 year old begged by the taxi driver not to attend his flat.

how is any of this criminal?

Because the women say they didn't consent. That's why. Would you like me to link you to the Sexual Offences Act 2003?

My god thank you. Some of these people just talk in catch phrases and seem to have very limited experience with trying to prosecute even very well-evidenced rape cases, limited insight into the psychology of rape, limited comprehension of how investigative journalism works, and limited understanding of society's failures around the issue of rape even as they appear to be participating in it.

@ChillysWaterBottle couldn’t agree more. I am dismayed by some of the comments on this thread ( and others)

sadly it illustrates why so many women don’t prosecute- juries are selected from people on this forum!

@ChevyCamaro I know someone who got 5 years for rape within a marriage- so personally I'm not really pro this trial by media stuff - I would be interested to know if any women actually reported to the police and asked to see a female officer. I know the score and why some women don't but even if they did it would at least be on file. He's a well known total twat and has effectively already been cancelled by mainstream media , so I'm not sure what this programme hopes to achieve, unless it's to bring more women out who have evidence so they can prosecute but I now think that will not be possible because of the revelations

@Thea33 unfortunately I agree, he is a chronically unsavoury arsehole clearly, but as I said below I had an acquaintance get 5 years for rape within marriage (she was a solicitor too) so the idea that it's pointless going to the police simply isn't the case- police totally love nabbing a celeb these days. At least if it's reported- it's on file. I can't stand the bloke but I suspect the reason they may have had trouble making it stick is because these women had been in a sexual relationship with him already. Utter arse , probably guilty as hell - but I don't see the point of the programme because now no one will be able (I think) to press charges.

I do hope you are not registered to vote

I think that in our society rape is considered such an awful, despicable crime
that the worst thing that can happen to anyone is to be accused of it. This is why people are so quick to try to find excuses for people (men) accused of rape and start worrying about trial by media. There are other scenarios where accusations of various sorts/other criminal behaviour can come out in the press and the same worries are not raised, like accusations of violence against staff with the same kind of they said/they said problem. It’s only with sex crimes that people start worrying this much.

SUCH nonsense

What great truths has Russel Brand exposed? Why does anyone care about him? His subscriptions on youtube are tiny. If "they" wanted to "take him out" they haven't done a very good job have they? He's still got a laptop and internet - he'll be making content for years yet and now he's got a hefty boost of publicity and Andrew Tate's fans on his side.

The fact that you're including Andrew Bridgen in your list of those who give him credibility speaks volumes. He was removed from his role because he beleives bullshit about vaccines and COVID - he's been completely sucked in by conspriacy theories and has no ability to critically think.

Andrew Bridgen's fake claims have been dicussed robustly on the COVID board. You can find incredibly detailed information there on why it is bullshit. Offering vaccines to the general population was beneficial, not a ploy for mass murder. The fact that you are swerving to COVID conspiracy just demonstrates the problem here.

Can you clarify which part of what I said is nonsense?
You are defending a perpertator of sexual assualt, on the ridiculous defence that he got to close to some unknown "truth", and is now being silenced. Except he hasn't revealed anything, and he clearly hasn't been silenced.

Sorry but reading the Times article has made me feel sick. What a disgusting man he clearly is.

That article makes for very difficult reading. And I assume he is still abusing women in his team and his audience. But now with the added headfuck of him being a magical spiritual leader.

As for the "trial by media" discussion, I see some merit in both sides of the argument. It is scary to circumvent the judicial system and sets a worrying precedent. At the same time, it's hard to see what other recourse these women have. I think the repercussions of this are going to be felt for a while, and so opinions may well change over time.

Going ahead with his gig last night proves he doesn't care about any alleged victims.

Most normal people would be mortified and want to work with any prosecutors.

He's demonstrating a lot of abuser behaviours.

I'm becoming as wary of the mainstream as many of RBs current followers.

But it's hard to deny both the evidence on the programme plus the fact it completely correlates with how RB has presented himself over the years.

The comparison to Saville for me is that like JS, RB was plainly speaking about who he is as part of his persona - and not getting picked up for it. In RBs case a sex pest who pushes boundaries - such as humiliating women (his radio newsreader and Andrew Sachs granddaughter).

Maybe these women don't actually want a court case but at least want their story heard.

Unfortunately though the timing is maybe 5 years too late, it won't have a huge effect on RBs career in that has already ditched Hollywood and mainstream TV and has worked up an alternative audience who are only too willing to choose what to believe and will remain loyal to him.

I think some of them are here?!

All evidence is compelling until it's challenged.

RB has already stated he is aware of the allegations and can produce witnesses/evidence that contradicts these women's accounts.

Who knows the truth, we certainly won't find out from media investigations.

The point is that this demonstrates the danger of taking one carefully curated documentary, designed to push a very specific agenda, as 'proof' of anything.

Might I suggest you read the accounts of the women in the Times article.

This is the feminism section @Thea33
We do not prioritise men's voices over women's in here. We start with the premise that we believe women.

If you wish to discuss your thoughts about men being silenced, please start a different fh read.

Having watched the documentary this morning, what is very clear is that the alleged crimes or actions of RB are simply a symptom of a much bigger problem, in that the world in which he used to reside facilitates and covers up such behaviour whilst it is putting money in the coffers.

He isn’t the first and I’m sure he won’t be the last and we can have all of the investigations into individuals that we like but it will change nothing until we address that fact that valuable male media assets are enabled to do whatever the fuck they want to women.