Please or to access all these features

News

Russell Brand 🤢🤮 in the Docky Wock

282 replies

U53rName · 21/10/2026 14:11

Credit to @thebrowncatisback for the title. Original thread is here: www.mumsnet.com/talk/in_the_news/5589048-russell-brand?callback=in&code=YTEWYJJJMZQTMJFHNS0ZNDI5LTK3N2QTZWJHYWNHZJGXNZA2&page=39&state=aa7521b41da5458084d85ced7c73c27d

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
Persephonia1966 · Yesterday 16:42

Charlize43 · 25/10/2026 13:33

Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein, Andrew Windsor Mountbatten (demoted & pariah), Dr. Frankenstein...

Harvey Weinstein got away in plain site for years and years. Even taking the case to court was a huge undertaking and it was unusual precisely because it is so rare for someone with his power to get taken down. He was in his seventies when he finally went to prison.

Epstein was first convicted in 2009 but the charges actually brought were (it is generally agreed) a massive downplaying of what he was actually guilty of. He received an unusually lenient sentence for it (house arrest in a massive mansion). And his life continued almost uninterrupted afterwards - very few people (except the Hermes guy) seem to have held the prosecution against him. Between 2009 and 2020 he was the opposite of a pariah even though anyone with eyes knew what he was by then. When he was arrested a second time he never faced trial. The only person to be found guilty in court was a woman. Which rather makes it seem as if Epstein and Maxwell were sex trafficking children to no-one.

Andrew MBW again got away with stuff for years. I am glad he had had his title removed. But his life is still fantastically privileged and he almost certainly has a better QoL than the alleged victims ever had. All the consequences he has faced have been via the UK establishment not America. I hope he might one day face a criminal trial. That has not happened yet however.

Then there are all the people in Andrew and Epstein's orbit who have never had criminal charges brought against them, whose lives continue as before, who are still part of the "great and good". Of course, association isn't guilt. But some of his associates are guilty and everyone knows that. On a completely unrelated note Donald Trump, Lex Werner, etc all seem to be having quite nice lives.

thebrowncatisback · Yesterday 16:57

Piglet89 · Yesterday 16:30

@Mamamia35which episode of the Times podcast said that none of the complainants in the current trial featured in Dispatches?

It’s well publicised/documented. Or watch the documentary. They’re all totally different stories

thebrowncatisback · Yesterday 17:01

And not everyone in the documentary claimed they were raped or victims of a crime. One of the main stories was a woman who had a relationship with him aged 16. He groomed her, didn’t treat her well, controlling and coercing but there were no criminal charges against him:

ThinkOfABetterUsername · Yesterday 19:08

FedUpFeminist · Yesterday 14:22

I’m just wondering how RB would remember each complainant given the frequency of his sexual encounters which wouldn’t be good for his defence i wouldn’t have thought. Just normal behaviour. Interesting the defence didn’t cross examine his PA . Interesting to see which witnesses he’s called.

I'm sure he doesn't but defendants in these cases can't say they don't remember. If they do there is only the complainant's version of events before the jury. It shouldn't be the case but the reality is if a jury hears only one version of events that's the one they will believe.

I suspect if Brand was in front of Judge instead of a jury he just say "He doesn't remember any of the women out of hundreds but if it's true he had sex with them he definately would have sincerely believed
it was consensual and a reasonable person in the same postion could reasonably believe the same." Let reasonable doubt do it's work. Juries are different, they will want to hear an alternative version of events.

I'm interested that the Driver does remember her. Did he keep a diary? Did she say something to him to corroborate her story? That would surely be very compelling evidence indeed.

redballerina · Yesterday 19:08

Unfortunately I don’t have the time to watch the videos/podcasts but could someone tell me if it’s looking like he’ll be found guilty based on the evidence so far? I believe he did it, based off reading the testimonies I’ve seen and also I’ve always had a deep feeling of unease about him.

CoconutSwirl · Yesterday 19:29

redballerina · Yesterday 19:08

Unfortunately I don’t have the time to watch the videos/podcasts but could someone tell me if it’s looking like he’ll be found guilty based on the evidence so far? I believe he did it, based off reading the testimonies I’ve seen and also I’ve always had a deep feeling of unease about him.

It's impossible to predict!

Piglet89 · Yesterday 22:48

redballerina · Yesterday 19:08

Unfortunately I don’t have the time to watch the videos/podcasts but could someone tell me if it’s looking like he’ll be found guilty based on the evidence so far? I believe he did it, based off reading the testimonies I’ve seen and also I’ve always had a deep feeling of unease about him.

As others have said, this is completely impossible to predict. The prosecution hasn’t even finished calling evidence yet and we haven’t heard any defence evidence yet. It depends on so many different variables, including the direction of discussions after the jury has retired.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page