Page 24 | Dispatches . Russel brand .

fabmaccawhackythumbsaloft · 2023-09-16T15:25:16+00:00

I actually like Russel brand . And I don't think he's ever hidden what he used to be in his heyday. He's always been very open about his drug use, and promiscuity. I read his first book . I watch his videos on fb , and while I don't always agree with him, he seems to have totally overhauled his lifestyle, attitudes, is into yoga, self care, seems to be a decent husband and father . Is this newsworthy ? Young famous comedian in heyday slept with lots and lots of women , consensually he says ? Hes never hidden it. On drug misuse I alWays had time for his views that it should be dealt with as a medical issue not a criminal one What's the news story ? I always feel like there is much glee and salivating before the media try and knock someone down. I don't think this is a huw edwards where people would be shocked at him trying to pick up young women behind his wife's back It seems that brand has settled down , lives a fairly mundane lifestyle and is happy with his choices . Or am I completely missing something?

HotSince82 · 16/09/2023 23:59

Lastchancechica · 16/09/2023 23:54

Age of consent should be 18. Alcohol should be 21.

See I want to agree with you, but a majority seem to want to have sex before 18. I know I did.

So how do we manage the legalities of that?

I suspect raising the drinking age to 21 may have a similar effect all by itself.

Less inebriated teens unable to consent for one thing.

AmazingSnakeHead · 16/09/2023 23:59

fabmaccawhackythumbsaloft · 16/09/2023 17:07

Tbh I hadn't actually seen the allegations despite having a Google search , so please forgive my ignorance.

This is ridiculous. So you started a thread saying you don't see how Brand doing this thing is news, yet you haven't even bothered to find out what the thing is? Seriously? What's the point then.

Conflating rape with promiscuity is extremely bad. And in this case, it doesn't actually matter that you didn't know - if you're going to start a thread about it, you should have known,

CPLawyer · 17/09/2023 00:00

Pizzapie22 · 16/09/2023 23:53

Tbh i think if the age of consent is 16 which is very young, although doesn’t feel it when you’re 16, then parents and schools really need to educate teenagers about grooming and pervs who will take advantage of them.

I would never drop my teenager off at a 30 somethings house party….no way! I’d lock them up in their room if I had to. Also at 16 I’d have had more sense although some friends didn’t.

Its hard for parents with unruly teens determined to do what they want so I think education is key or upping the age of consent to 18.

Looking back to 15 years ago, there were loads of people in my peer group dating men in their late 20's and early 30's. Reflecting, it is disgusting but at the time, we didn't see anything wrong with it. In fact I was the odd one out having a 'boring' boyfriend who was only a year older than me. 🫣 it horrifies me now

Twilight7777 · 17/09/2023 00:01

The programme is very damning for Brand and I have no doubt it’s all true. But what concerns me is the bias, I.e. channel 4 investigating themselves essentially. Maybe I’m wrong in thinking this.

WorkingOnMyMindset · 17/09/2023 00:01

MelroseGrainger · 16/09/2023 23:15

Absolutely this. The 44,000 complaints made by the public who heard the Sachs call compared to the deafening silence from everyone when Brand offered up his female colleague to perform a naked massage on Jimmy Savile, and told his audience he wanted to fuck the female news anchor under her desk. I felt as sick at the hypocrisy and clear disregard for the women - but an old man gets mildly embarrassed and all of a sudden Brand becomes a problem.

It was as sickening as hearing about the rape and oral rape.

Show quote history

This is very true.

BeignetPommes · 17/09/2023 00:03

But most of this programme seems to just be insinuation and innuendo. I question the motives behind the whole thing

Yup.

Fedupfatandfrumpy · 17/09/2023 00:04

I'm confused as to why Racheal kept momentos of the time with him given that it was so traumatic?

beatrix1234 · 17/09/2023 00:04

HotSince82 · 16/09/2023 23:54

Strange is certainly one word for it. Misogynistic may fit better

Show quote history

Andrew Tate was banned from you tube when he got send to jail so there seem to be some "boundaries" as to how much you can get away spewing misogyny on YouTube. On the other hand never been a big fan of Russell but have been watching some of his YouTube channel content thought the years and it was all conspiracy stuff, left wing politics and how to make home made soap (what I said),but never detected any misogynist stuff whatsoever. If he was a jerk to the ladies in his personal life that I don't know because I've never met the guy. I do think he got into hot water with YouTube policies when he started to brag anti vaccine conspiracies so had to tone it down a lot.

RedToothBrush · 17/09/2023 00:05

Also, I do wonder if the exposure of Brand will lead to the exposure of others who have been much talked about in code....

Metoo was the breaking the dam moment which led to other convictions.

Weinstein was effectively exposed after a 'trial by media'.

In October 2017, The New York Times and The New Yorker reported that dozens of women had accused film producer Harvey Weinstein of rape, sexual assault and sexual abuse over a period of at least 30 years. Over 80 women in the film industry eventually accused Weinstein of such acts. Weinstein himself denied "any non-consensual sex"

But yeah maybe these journalists shouldn't have published. And these women shouldnt have said anything because they didn't report it to the police 'at the appropriate time'.

Yep. Definitely. They were all out for the money from selling their stories too. Damn liars. All of them.

Wait. Weinstein was convicted? Oh. Yeah.

RedToothBrush · 17/09/2023 00:06

Twilight7777 · 17/09/2023 00:01

The programme is very damning for Brand and I have no doubt it’s all true. But what concerns me is the bias, I.e. channel 4 investigating themselves essentially. Maybe I’m wrong in thinking this.

Oh well they shouldn't have bothered and they should have kept quiet then? Ok.

Face palm.

Original poster

fabmaccawhackythumbsaloft · 17/09/2023 00:09

People are reading my op and commenting like I've not posted since

I've said I regret this post entirely
I think it's one of many

I've detailed some deep,y personal experiences but happy to have those bypassed

I believe the women here and in my ignorance before I had any iota of what what was being alleged I posted because all that's on the bbc is his response and I couldn't find the allegations.

I suspect hq is going to be inundated with this shit and im happy to hold my hands up and say I was wrong and completely had not been in possession of the allegations.

I don't expect people to read this before loading the guns . Im sorry for beginning this thread , but in some ways it's useful, sadly inflammatory in others .

OP posts:

marblemad · 17/09/2023 00:11

It was utter nonsense, 'victim' statements with huge inconsistencies , zero corroborated evidence and using his comedy clips to fuel the narrative. Yes he was known for being promiscuous but half of the women admitted to actual consent in the footage, then later stating they didn't like how rough it was, he has always been transparent that he is into bdsm so what utter bs.

beatrix1234 · 17/09/2023 00:12

RedToothBrush · 17/09/2023 00:05

Also, I do wonder if the exposure of Brand will lead to the exposure of others who have been much talked about in code....

Metoo was the breaking the dam moment which led to other convictions.

Weinstein was effectively exposed after a 'trial by media'.

In October 2017, The New York Times and The New Yorker reported that dozens of women had accused film producer Harvey Weinstein of rape, sexual assault and sexual abuse over a period of at least 30 years. Over 80 women in the film industry eventually accused Weinstein of such acts. Weinstein himself denied "any non-consensual sex"

But yeah maybe these journalists shouldn't have published. And these women shouldnt have said anything because they didn't report it to the police 'at the appropriate time'.

Yep. Definitely. They were all out for the money from selling their stories too. Damn liars. All of them.

Wait. Weinstein was convicted? Oh. Yeah.

I think you're getting a tad confused here. Weinstein had plenty of police reports from women, he was under the lens of the New York police department who had wired a few women and sent them his way. The police evidence was quite overwhelming, and of course when the trial happened he went to jail because of all this solid police evidence. This is not Russells case by any means, there's no police reports, there's no evidence and there's no police investigation, just a trial by media. Doesn't mean that a couple of women can come forward in the future after watching this doc and press charges. You never know.

HotSince82 · 17/09/2023 00:12

beatrix1234 · 17/09/2023 00:04

Andrew Tate was banned from you tube when he got send to jail so there seem to be some "boundaries" as to how much you can get away spewing misogyny on YouTube. On the other hand never been a big fan of Russell but have been watching some of his YouTube channel content thought the years and it was all conspiracy stuff, left wing politics and how to make home made soap (what I said),but never detected any misogynist stuff whatsoever. If he was a jerk to the ladies in his personal life that I don't know because I've never met the guy. I do think he got into hot water with YouTube policies when he started to brag anti vaccine conspiracies so had to tone it down a lot.

Show quote history

I've never watched Tate or Brand but if Dr Peterson can be cancelled for refusing to call a he a she, and Brand stays on after this then you tube can kiss my fat arse.

flappersdelight · 17/09/2023 00:13

@borninthe80esss Can you edit original posts like normal posts? Maybe put a disclaimer in your op. I've found all your posts very thoughtful with genuine contrition, so don't keep beating yourself up about it.

Original poster

fabmaccawhackythumbsaloft · 17/09/2023 00:16

flappersdelight · 17/09/2023 00:13

@borninthe80esss Can you edit original posts like normal posts? Maybe put a disclaimer in your op. I've found all your posts very thoughtful with genuine contrition, so don't keep beating yourself up about it.

Is that to me ?

OP posts:

BeignetPommes · 17/09/2023 00:16

Let's hope his chickens have finally come home to roost

Yes indeed. But only if he's guilty, of course. You can't believe everything you see on telly.

swimsong · 17/09/2023 00:16

HotSince82 · 16/09/2023 23:11

Nope.

Been in her position

Asked the same questions by a barrister.

He walked free. I know what I'm talking about

Show quote history

Why are you arguing against a proposition that no one has put forward? Who claimed here that her barrister would win the case? Your posts are pointless.

Sueretiredawhileago · 17/09/2023 00:17

True

HotSince82 · 17/09/2023 00:17

marblemad · 17/09/2023 00:11

It was utter nonsense, 'victim' statements with huge inconsistencies , zero corroborated evidence and using his comedy clips to fuel the narrative. Yes he was known for being promiscuous but half of the women admitted to actual consent in the footage, then later stating they didn't like how rough it was, he has always been transparent that he is into bdsm so what utter bs.

And THIS ^^

Proves my point re the chances of conviction.

That's the defence case and I will bet my house the poster isn't even a barrister. So imagine how they can spin it.

SirVixofVixHall · 17/09/2023 00:17

ArseMenagerie · 16/09/2023 22:04

RB was a promiscuous serial shagger who thought he was untouchable, then he was fired and parlayed that into being ‘anti-mainstream’ aka ‘’unbookable’. The problem of course is, as all women know, that a ‘serial shagger’ is a sanitised way of saying abuser and it always means a man who has taken advantage of young or vulnerable woman. Or simply women who like him a bit but not enough and he won’t hear that.

Completely agree with this.

HotSince82 · 17/09/2023 00:19

swimsong · 17/09/2023 00:16

Why are you arguing against a proposition that no one has put forward? Who claimed here that her barrister would win the case? Your posts are pointless.

Show quote history

Well in bringing a case the point is to win. Unless I am mistaken.

Your rudeness is quite unbecoming BTW.

FarmGirl78 · 17/09/2023 00:21

flappersdelight · 17/09/2023 00:13

@borninthe80esss Can you edit original posts like normal posts? Maybe put a disclaimer in your op. I've found all your posts very thoughtful with genuine contrition, so don't keep beating yourself up about it.

Posts can only be edited for a short time after you send them. I'm assuming it's done of a measure of minutes but might kick in after you've scrolled so far out something. It'll be far too late now for OP to edit their first post. Hopefully MNHQ will add disclaimer in there. 🤞🏻

HatThatWearsYou · 17/09/2023 00:22

Your OP is a strange tasteless take for someone who was apparently a policewoman... or maybe not from your history of posting.

Sueretiredawhileago · 17/09/2023 00:22

I’d imagine there is a lot of Russell Brand PR presence on this thread and other social media tonight. Be careful