Please or to access all these features

News

Russell Brand 🤢🤮 in the Docky Wock

1000 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
13
eastegg · 28/10/2026 19:38

ThinkOfABetterUsername · 28/10/2026 17:27

I doubt the judge gets his information from what someone on mumsnet described she heard on the news. So he'll probably manage without your input.

Try and let us know how you got on?

Without my input? I have no input for the judge. You were the one saying oral rape isn’t legally made out on the prosecution evidence ie disagreeing with the judge. I agree he won’t be interested in your view on that. Good, sorted. We agree.

ThinkOfABetterUsername · 28/10/2026 20:00

eastegg · 28/10/2026 19:38

Without my input? I have no input for the judge. You were the one saying oral rape isn’t legally made out on the prosecution evidence ie disagreeing with the judge. I agree he won’t be interested in your view on that. Good, sorted. We agree.

I started.my post with:

"Is that definately her version of events?"

and ended with:

"Maybe there's some missing information or the report is wrong."

Christ, the caveats were about a third of the post. In fact the whole tone of the post was "I can't believe those are the facts".

English comprehension in the UK is in a catastrophic state.

mummabubs · 28/10/2026 20:42

ThinkOfABetterUsername · 28/10/2026 13:30

Well, you can apply whatever emotive language you want but it takes a vast amount of cooperation to get someone into a toilet, into a toilet cubicle, lock the door and then PIM.

If he had a knife or a gun fair enough, but it sounds like he had no means of coercion.

It's utterly out of place compared to some of the other charges.

(Of course, the facts as stated may simply be wrong.)

Edited

I does sadden me when I read views like this. The person who abused me did not have a knife, or a gun. Co-ercive control, shock, and fear in the moment were enough. I did not consent. I did not co-operate beyond physically being there while things were done to me. Obviously I can't comment on the claimant's experience, but as I'm sure many others will have pointed out - there is no "right" way to avoid being assaulted.

Chaostheory12 · 28/10/2026 20:50

I would be very interested in a poll to see how many people know of someone or several someone's who have been raped or sexually assaulted even if it has not happened to you personally. I know a lot of people who have had that experience, though I luckily haven't. It's really terrifyingly common.

ThinkOfABetterUsername · 28/10/2026 20:51

mummabubs · 28/10/2026 20:42

I does sadden me when I read views like this. The person who abused me did not have a knife, or a gun. Co-ercive control, shock, and fear in the moment were enough. I did not consent. I did not co-operate beyond physically being there while things were done to me. Obviously I can't comment on the claimant's experience, but as I'm sure many others will have pointed out - there is no "right" way to avoid being assaulted.

I'm sorry to hear that, but you say yourself that you were coerced.

The post I was replying to mentioned no coercion. Clearly, if there was coercion, that is the "missing information" which I specifically allowed for.

eastegg · 28/10/2026 21:03

ThinkOfABetterUsername · 28/10/2026 20:00

I started.my post with:

"Is that definately her version of events?"

and ended with:

"Maybe there's some missing information or the report is wrong."

Christ, the caveats were about a third of the post. In fact the whole tone of the post was "I can't believe those are the facts".

English comprehension in the UK is in a catastrophic state.

Yes it’s bad isn’t it.

I understand you’re saying that you doubt the reports are correct, because if they are then it doesn’t amount to oral rape. What I’ve read does amount to oral rape, and I don’t think I’m looking at information about that count that is any different to what you’re looking at. I don’t think the problem is that you’re reading a report of what that complainant has said that is wrong (although of course it won’t be word for word what she said), I think the problem is you’re interpreting it as not amounting to rape, when legally it does.

LlynTegid · 28/10/2026 21:08

Chaostheory12 · 28/10/2026 20:50

I would be very interested in a poll to see how many people know of someone or several someone's who have been raped or sexually assaulted even if it has not happened to you personally. I know a lot of people who have had that experience, though I luckily haven't. It's really terrifyingly common.

Two of my class at school, one of whom went public after the rapist was convicted many years later. The impact of her testimony was such that it was like seeing a different woman inside the same body, and made me think of anything about our time in the same class could have indicated what had happened.

hihelenhi · 28/10/2026 21:09

ThinkOfABetterUsername · 28/10/2026 20:51

I'm sorry to hear that, but you say yourself that you were coerced.

The post I was replying to mentioned no coercion. Clearly, if there was coercion, that is the "missing information" which I specifically allowed for.

Edited

We were talking about force, not the need for coercion. You were saying that there was no way she could have been 'forced' into the toilet by Brand as he didn't have a gun or a knife. And as we pointed out, that's utter nonsense.

"English comprehension in the UK is in a catastrophic state."

Yours may be but the rest of ours isn't. I think most of us have understood quite easily. It's only you that appears to be experiencing difficulty with the basics. It's why you keep attempting to insult and patronise us, despite coming out with rubbish.

  • It was, after all, you who falsely claimed that it had been "reported" that this particular incident did not meet the criteria for rape (not true, and it was not the allegation that got downgraded).
  • It was you who falsely claimed that any woman could resist oral rape by clamping her mouth shut
  • It was you who claimed that there was no way Brand could have physically forced this woman into a toilet cubicle as he didn't have a knife or gun, so would need to "coerce" her instead, and you who inferred that this suggested she was lying.
  • It was you who falsely claimed that it was "easy" to breathe through your teeth when a man who'd stuck his dick forcibly in your mouth was holding your nose

As I said, give it a fucking rest.

Your disingenuousness is extremely revealing. Also extremely tiresome.

hihelenhi · 28/10/2026 21:18

Chaostheory12 · 28/10/2026 20:50

I would be very interested in a poll to see how many people know of someone or several someone's who have been raped or sexually assaulted even if it has not happened to you personally. I know a lot of people who have had that experience, though I luckily haven't. It's really terrifyingly common.

I knew of at least two in my direct peer group at school when I was in my teens. One who was sexually assaulted by her own father (as her sisters had been before her) and one who was abducted by a stranger, raped, stabbed and left dead at the side of the road. The latter made national news.

So that's without the various near misses and incidents I've had personally, and the reports of many women I know over the decades since.

It's certainly not as uncommon as most of us would prefer it to be.

mummabubs · 28/10/2026 21:18

ThinkOfABetterUsername · 28/10/2026 20:51

I'm sorry to hear that, but you say yourself that you were coerced.

The post I was replying to mentioned no coercion. Clearly, if there was coercion, that is the "missing information" which I specifically allowed for.

Edited

Appreciate your reply. I would suggest that his public standing/ fame at the time could have facilitated co-ercion, or a power imbalance for want of a better term. A lot of the claimants have independently said the same thing: I didn't report because he was famous and I felt no-one would believe my word against his". It's hard to understand how someone can be capable of dissociating from the assault whilst also simultaneously weighing this up but it absolutely happens. If a celebrity dragged me into a toilet and assaulted me in all honesty I think I would have responded exactly as these women describe.

ZubinB · 28/10/2026 21:36

CoconutSwirl · 22/10/2026 13:34

@SpanishFly
@Mamamia35
Re Laura
I am afraid that if you watched her youtube video recorded 4 days ago, you would see that she remains resolute in her loyalty and belief in her husband.
She very clearly states in the youtube video that when people she knows personally express sympathy towards her about how difficult this trial must be for her, she corrects them and tells them that actually she is grateful for this court process because it is bringing her closer to grace, truth, the power of God and that she thanks the court process for this. She says that she and RB are reading bible verses in the taxi on the way to court. She talks for a few minutes about how the media who are reporting on this trial are evil, that they are dark forces who must be ignored. This was filmed 4 days ago after already hearing so much in court. Additionally, the video sees her laughing frequently with RB, smiling at him regularly, sharing jokes with him, complimenting him, telling him he's right when he speaks. It shows her telling RB his court outfits over the past week have made him look "wonderful" and that she's received compliments about how "smart" the two of them look in their outfits for court.
This is not a distressed woman, nor a woman who is finding the details from the victims distressing. This is not a woman who is second guessing her husband.
There is a moment where RB laughs and says in a joking voice "I've had a lot of things said about me in the past week hahaha" And Laura replies instantly "Yes!!" and laughs along with him.
Meanwhile we see him tell her she is wrong when she corrected him about a day of the week; he says "Sunday" she corrects him and says "Monday" he jumps on that and literally tells her "I didn't just say Sunday, you're wrong" when he HAD just said Sunday and she was RIGHT. He tells her she's got it wrong. She instantly admits she's wrong and apologises "sorry" to him immediately. But I watched it. She wasn't wrong. What she said was right. But he told her she said something wrong and she accepted it and apologised. We see him making a crude double entendre joke at her about her liking 'beef fingers' and doesn't let it drop. He makes her tell viewers that her beloved cat is taken from her ex-boyfriend. He makes a big deal about her pyjama top being low cut and revealing and tells her he likes view (of her breasts) and adopts some sort of fake comedy sleaze voice for this and her reply to this is "Oh you're so sweet". Like he's being a sleazeball to her right on camera, pointing out to viewers that her PJ top is slipping and revealing and that he likes it, and she responds by telling him he's sweet? I think she means he's sweet to let her know her top is exposing her, because she then re-adjusts it. But Jesus, she clearly believes he is sweet. We see him get highly irritated and cross all of a sudden when he realises he's rambling on about something he already rambled on about on last week's video, and berated her for not telling him he's repeating himself because it makes him look like he's senile and challenges her about why didn't she tell him he'd already said this last week.
She agrees with
Every
Thing
He
Says
Every single word. The entire video is of her saying to him:
"Mmmm" whilst nodding in agreement.
"You're right" whilst nodding in agreement.
"Mmmm hmmm" whilst nodding.
"Yesssss" whilst gazing at him.
Literally to everything he says.

Some people feel we shouldn't be watching the video because our views mean he's earning money from it. But to me it's worth watching for the amount it reveals about them both.
It's called Sunday Service with Laura & Russell if you're interested, 18th October.

Edited

this is EXACTLY what she is. She is a cult follower of his. It's awful to watch

ThinkOfABetterUsername · 28/10/2026 21:47

mummabubs · 28/10/2026 21:18

Appreciate your reply. I would suggest that his public standing/ fame at the time could have facilitated co-ercion, or a power imbalance for want of a better term. A lot of the claimants have independently said the same thing: I didn't report because he was famous and I felt no-one would believe my word against his". It's hard to understand how someone can be capable of dissociating from the assault whilst also simultaneously weighing this up but it absolutely happens. If a celebrity dragged me into a toilet and assaulted me in all honesty I think I would have responded exactly as these women describe.

I would suggest that his public standing/ fame at the time could have facilitated co-ercion, or a power imbalance for want of a better term.

Section 74 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003:

"A person consents if he agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice."

To my mind, Brand being famous etc doesn't restrict her freedom or capacity.

Of course if there was coercion then the freedom test isn't met but I really don't think Brand's 'status' by itself is coercion. (And if it was how can any famous/wealthy person have consensual sex - they can't.)

(The post I was replying to mentioned no coercion. Clearly, if there was coercion, that is the "missing information" which I specifically allowed for.)

LaDeratiseuse · 28/10/2026 23:00

ZubinB · 28/10/2026 21:36

this is EXACTLY what she is. She is a cult follower of his. It's awful to watch

Or maybe he isn’t guilty? No way yet of knowing that. But perhaps .. she has s better knowledge of her own husband than random cackling tricoteuses on the internet…

hihelenhi · 28/10/2026 23:07

ThinkOfABetterUsername · 28/10/2026 21:47

I would suggest that his public standing/ fame at the time could have facilitated co-ercion, or a power imbalance for want of a better term.

Section 74 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003:

"A person consents if he agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice."

To my mind, Brand being famous etc doesn't restrict her freedom or capacity.

Of course if there was coercion then the freedom test isn't met but I really don't think Brand's 'status' by itself is coercion. (And if it was how can any famous/wealthy person have consensual sex - they can't.)

(The post I was replying to mentioned no coercion. Clearly, if there was coercion, that is the "missing information" which I specifically allowed for.)

Except as pointed out, it didn't require "coercion" so I'm not sure why you think it must have needed to. It almost certainly involved physical force, given that the alleged victim said that her arm was grabbed. Which another witness also said. The only person saying coercion must have been required and so is "missing' information is you.

Give me strength.

hihelenhi · 28/10/2026 23:09

LaDeratiseuse · 28/10/2026 23:00

Or maybe he isn’t guilty? No way yet of knowing that. But perhaps .. she has s better knowledge of her own husband than random cackling tricoteuses on the internet…

No way?

I think there's a strong balance of probabilities here. Given his own behaviour, the multiple accusers, the previous accusers, his own admissions...

"Cackling tricoteuses?" Oh do fuck off.I see someone's invited more MRAs in. Strangely rape cases always do seem to attract them,.

Klippin · 28/10/2026 23:10

Why is that she says she can’t remember the toilet and the layout is now completely different but Brand says it’s exactly the same? Surely this can be looked into ?

U53rName · 28/10/2026 23:35

Chaostheory12 · 28/10/2026 20:50

I would be very interested in a poll to see how many people know of someone or several someone's who have been raped or sexually assaulted even if it has not happened to you personally. I know a lot of people who have had that experience, though I luckily haven't. It's really terrifyingly common.

I had a group of men (strangers) surround me in the street in broad daylight and grope my breasts and in between my legs.

OP posts:
LaDeratiseuse · 28/10/2026 23:45

Have you read the report from Rupert Lowe’s enquiry into the organised rape gangs in Yorkshire?

eastegg · 29/10/2026 00:12

LaDeratiseuse · 28/10/2026 23:45

Have you read the report from Rupert Lowe’s enquiry into the organised rape gangs in Yorkshire?

I think you meant to start your own thread with this and just forgot you were still on a Russell Brand thread?

hihelenhi · 29/10/2026 00:27

LaDeratiseuse · 28/10/2026 23:45

Have you read the report from Rupert Lowe’s enquiry into the organised rape gangs in Yorkshire?

We know about the rape gangs, yes. Nothing to do with this thread or Russell Brand.

UnwillingAdvocate · 29/10/2026 02:30

I think anyone following the daily minute by minute transcripts from inside court can see how poorly the evidence has been put together by the fact pretty much all of it revolves around ‘he said, she said’. Very little of this is likely to be strong enough on its own to secure a safe conviction which does neither the victims or defendant any favours.

Piglet89 · 29/10/2026 05:20

Klippin · 28/10/2026 18:23

His strongest defense was him saying morally consent is needed but also for his own ego, he always wanted consent as he was craved the approval of women.

@Klippinanyone who watched that clip a PP posted with Emily Blunt and Paloma can see he has zero respect for women, and couldn’t give a shit what they think or say. He’s obviously a narcissistic misogynist and times and attitudes towards this shit have changed quite a bit.

I am concerned there are twice as many men as women on the jury, though.

Piglet89 · 29/10/2026 05:35

hihelenhi · 28/10/2026 23:09

No way?

I think there's a strong balance of probabilities here. Given his own behaviour, the multiple accusers, the previous accusers, his own admissions...

"Cackling tricoteuses?" Oh do fuck off.I see someone's invited more MRAs in. Strangely rape cases always do seem to attract them,.

@hihelenhijust to clear up one thing on the standard of proof. ‘On the balance of probabilities” isn’t the standard in criminal cases (though it is in civil ones). In criminal cases, the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The former broadly means “it’s more likely than not that it happened”. But ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ means the jury must be sure he’s guilty of the offences on the indictment before they may convict.

Klippin · 29/10/2026 07:15

Klippin · 28/10/2026 23:10

Why is that she says she can’t remember the toilet and the layout is now completely different but Brand says it’s exactly the same? Surely this can be looked into ?

Any idea why this hasn’t been looked into?

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread