Russell Brand 🤢🤮

[Netcurtainnelly]

🤢 🤢 Russell Brand. I never liked him anyway, Now he's on trail. Denies all charges of course.

I think it is quite obvious there were those around Brand that effectively facilitated a huge number of sexual encounters in a really quite shocking manner. It is strange these people are not being called as witnesses but maybe time has meant these characters have new jobs and new lives so certainly would be reluctant to give evidence now.

I have been in uncomfortable situations and made the most noise when I didn’t know the bloke. When it’s someone you know or might affect your life, different story,

I suppose bringing an accusation against Brand would have risked career destruction tion as well as potential defamation case?

Yes, he's notorious for heavy legal threats at the smallest provocation.

Some of the witnesses have said they had to be mindful of their careers and that colleagues were, too. That was true in Savile's case, as well, and doubtless others. We can, perhaps, hope that this painfully slow process of 'shame changing sides' will result in less tolerance for sexual abuse. When it's an open secret in the abuser's circles, things have gone horribly wrong.

That's horrific. Unbelievable. What were the jury thinking?! I'm so sorry. I hope karma will get back at your scumbag rapist

I wonder if the judge will make clear that going voluntarily to someone's private residence of private area can never be seen as tacit consent to sexual activity as I think may be like a lot of SA/rape trials is a feature of this case. I am not a lawyer but is the defence allowed to state the voluntary nature of entering somewhere private in the hope the jury will make their own inferences especially as the jury unfortunately may have incorrect views of consent. Does the judge before the jury deliberates tell them that under law they have to disregard entry into hotel rooms etc. in terms of consent.

I know that you're highlighting some men to stress in not all but I honestly think that these men are so intellectually subnormal as to be outliers.

The notion of a 'type' as in, 'he's not my type' is very, very widely understood.

Not even in the so-called red pill community are they ridiculous enough to promote the idea that if a man 'ups his game' literally ALL women will be attracted to him- that would be insane. Just a lot more than currently are.

You mentioned Tony Robinson as a strange choice.
He's not. He's successful, confident and speaks with authority.
All attractive features.
It's not all about looks.

These misogynistic men all seem to have very black and white almost childlike mindsets. They cannot see any nuance at all. This demand for everything to be “fair” with zero understanding of what life is like for women and how our hands are tied behind our backs from the start. Seeing the “price of everything and the value of nothing”.

I feel sad for them really they are epically missing the point of life by cutting themselves off from women and girls. Stunted. I would be so sad if I had a son like that.

As someone who makes frequent home visits for my job I bloody hope that’s not seen as tacit consent to sex! Wtaf defence is that?!?

Well theres plenty of scum wanting to queue up and sleep with bonnie blue.....gross as she is and makes you sick. Theres plenty of things that make you sick and people still happily do them.

No they won’t, as the facts, including whether a complainant consented and whether RB reasonably believed that she did, are entirely a matter for the jury. However he will remind them of what the first complainant said about that (that she thought he was gay, was not attracted to him and wanted to discuss the project) as well as what RB says. There’s certainly no legal presumption of consent by inviting someone to your room, but nor is there a legal direction to ignore it. It’s up to the jury.

Of course in relation to the anal sex count, it’s entirely common ground that she was there for sex, so the significance of going to his house shouldn’t really be an issue. The issue there is whether she consented to a particular type of sex and/or withdrawal of consent, and the judge will remind the jury of all that’s said relevant to that eg that she says she insisted on a condom and he took it off and that she said no a number of times. (Cross examination of that complainant is today I believe. Grim.)

Of course it wouldn't be viewed as tacit consent for sex!
Your reason for being there is clear-to do a job.

There'd be no ambiguity that the defence could use as to why you were there. Which they will in Brand's case.

In my opinion, of course.

I'm actually pretty confident that most people would see that consenting to PIV sex does most definitely NOT mean consenting to anal sex.

Also a lot of people - men and women-find this particular act as repulsive to them. I don't want an argument about this.

It's proving that she did not consent that is the problem.

Eh? An argument? I’m not looking for one with you I don’t think. I’ve said the issue will be whether she consented to a particular type of sex ie anal. I’ve not said that the defence will be that by consenting to vaginal she also consented to anal. I suspect RB’s case won’t be that, it’s likely to be that she gave consent to anal some other way, god knows.

You seem to have an issue with me and I don’t know what it is.

Oh OK fair enough. I got the wrong end of the stick.
The argument comment wasn't directed towards you. It was towards other readers who may want to argue about the issue.

I can assure you that I have no issue with you whatsoever.
I don't even usually notice user names and think that I've been polite on my engagement on this thread with others.

I want to live in a world where women can be alone with a man without meaning she’s there for sex and if she’s there for sex, she’s able to change her mind at any time

where we can consent to vaginal sex it doesn’t mean we want anal

we can walk alone at night, it doesn’t mean were asking to be attacked

we can want to meet someone famous, doesn’t mean we want them to touch us: we definitely dont want to suck their dicks

things are changing but sadly there’s too much resistance

And i wish men would stop believing that sex is their natural right. They’re not entitled to it.

I think he'll end up being damned by quite a few of his own words, too tbh. There's the text he sent to one of the women, as mentioned earlier, and no doubt there'll be others which pretty much underlines what he's being accused of doing.

I've also just seen someone mention on Reddit that there's a whole bit in his "booky wook" (bleurgh) about what he refers to as "the knobsticle course", as in, how he can get women who are "moral' and unlikely to want to sleep with him to do so. In other words, he's talking about how he gets off on finding whichever way he can to get past their boundaries. He's more interested in "having" them than in women who are throwing themselves at him. (And as we see, even with those who are having sex with him willingly at first, he's more interested in forcing what they haven't consented to than what they have).

Any man who takes this approach to women's consent and has this mindset is a walking red flag, tbh. He is very much demonstrating a pattern, and much of it is there in black and white. Plain sight, as they say. But being enabled constantly.

I have been listening to the testimonies of the Women and can entirely believe why they didn’t report any of these incidents at the time

20something me would have felt incredibly ashamed if i had experienced the rape that these women did. Im pretty sure i would have felt I was to blame. He degraded them. He harmed their self respect. They would have known it was there word against his and would no doubt have felt that any women who goes home with a man is always going to be “asking for it” what did she expect, leading him on like that?

And for the young women who felt their jobs would be in jeopardy, yep. Can totally understand how they would have felt at that time. They were juniors in a toxic environment and he was the star.

It's not an intellectual problem in the sense of low IQ. It's a more complicated reasoning problem. But my point is indeed most men don't think along those lines but most men aren't sending a lot of energy online trying to mansplain why all women wanted Russel Brand so he can't be a rapist. It's red pill but with a stronger streak of vindictiveness.

I cant believe he wrote that in his bookywook! See! How was that even acceptable? It’s not appropriate for print. Who bought that and thought it was a decent read? How did it get published? It says so much about our society and how women are sexual conquests for predators

I witnessed this too 🤢 Vile creep

That book was number one on the best seller list for quite a while so clearly a lot of people bought it. I agree it’s a shocking indictment of society.

And for the young women who felt their jobs would be in jeopardy, yep. Can totally understand how they would have felt at that time. They were juniors in a toxic environment and he was the star.

This. If she reports inappropriate work behaviours, the “resolution” is separating the two parties. Who leaves the production? The star, or the random production assistant? Hmmm…

OK.
I don't think Brand himself is particularly 'red pill', though.
If he were, he would not apologise in response to the 'animal' text.
The red pill 'philosophy' would most definitely not advocate apologising at all.

Incidentally, I think that apology will be crucial in convicting him.

Why apologise if you've done nothing wrong?
Surely to somebody like Brand IF it were consensual a night like that would be nothing to apologise for.

THAT in itself convinces me of his guilt - even if I knew little else.

Will that text still exist? Could it be retrieved?