Russell Brand

[admin2]

Split from the 'Rape' thread.

[Boac]

Russell Brand is discovering that if you stick your head above the parapet you need to be reasonably 'clean' to avoid having it hacked off.

[OneHungLow]

Russell Brand is discovering that if you stick your head above the parapet you need to be reasonably 'clean' to avoid having it hacked off.

The time is well nigh that the unpleasant charlatan is hoisted with his own petard. Another loony with a messiah complex and much else to hide.

Russell Brand.JPG (26.72 KiB) Viewed 1861 times

Move on over Charles Manson.

[OFSO]

Metropolitan Police statement is that they are aware of reports in the media but none of the supposed victims have contacted the police, and they urge them to do so if they have a complaint.
Comment unnecessary.

[OneHungLow]

Metropolitan Police statement is that they are aware of reports in the media but none of the supposed victims have contacted the police, and they urge them to do so if they have a complaint.
Comment unnecessary.

Well you certainly wouldn't expect the US complainants to be rushing to contact the Metropolitan police would you?

Any possible UK based complainants may be deterred by cases such as the following...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... r-old-girl

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... ce-officer

https://www.met.police.uk/foi-ai/metrop ... ember2021/

[OFSO]

Does "innocent until proven guilty" not apply to cases of rape, or is a higher or lower level of proof required. The scum of the media obviously require no proof at all. If - note that, IF - he is found innocent -IF- I hope he sues the arse off them.

[Boac]

BBC may well be skating on very thin ice on this one. From The Times:
"The BBC is facing urgent questions about Russell Brand amid allegations that he used its car service to pick up a 16-year-old girl from her school so that she could play truant and visit him at his home"

[G-CPTN]

This person js now appealing for money 'to support him'.

[OneHungLow]

This person js now appealing for money 'to support him'.

He is reputed to be a multi-millionaire, let him support himself.

[Boac]

This person js now appealing for money 'to support him'.

Where is he doing that?

The behaviour of the UK government is despicable over this. They are ignoring the principle of 'innocent until...' which should concern us all. Good for 'Rumble' in allowing him a voice.

[OneHungLow]

This person js now appealing for money 'to support him'.

Where is he doing that?

The behaviour of the UK government is despicable over this. They are ignoring the principle of 'innocent until...' which should concern us all. Good for 'Rumble' in allowing him a voice.

Let him have his say and day in court (and let him pay for that).

[G-CPTN]

This person js now appealing for money 'to support him'.

Where is he doing that?

Instagram.

[Boac]

I see him appealing for 'support' for his cause? Access to all these videos, including Rumble, is free. No 'money' required.

[Hydromet]

Maybe I'm just fortunate, but until these allegations arose, I'd never heard of Russell Brand.

The place for allegations like these to be tested is in court, not in the press. The cost in money and the emotional toll on all parties can be very high when the press gets involved, as a couple of people in Australia are now finding out.
Allegations which have been strenuously denied were made, and the alleged victim, encouraged by politicians, gave interviews and a speech at the National Press Club. The case went to trial, but was aborted due to juror misconduct. Whether as a result of lack of a sound case, incompetence or improper actions by the Director of Public Prosecutions or care for the welfare of the complainant, it was decided to discontinue the prosecution. This is a most unsatisfactory outcome for those concerned; the complainant has lost the opportunity to see justice done if the alleged perpetrator was guilty, and the subject of the allegations lost the opportunity to clear his name.
The subject of the allegations has now taken the only action he could to clear his name - he has sued various media outlets for defamation. One has settled, with no compensation but some of his legal expenses paid. The others are relying defences of truth and public interest.
Whatever the outcome, all parties will spend a lot of money, and the press outlets will rely in part on the fact that their coffers are much deeper than the person who is suing them. Even if he wins, he will probably be almost unemployable in the field he appears to have set his heart on.

[OneHungLow]

This person js now appealing for money 'to support him'.

He is reputed to be a multi-millionaire, let him support himself.

Given the apparent ban imposed on him by theatres and other venues, I think it’s probably safe to say that we’ve now seen Russell Brand’s last stand-up routine for a while; now it looks as though we are witnessing Brand’s last stand.

He’s long-since been “cancelled” by the mainstream channels, and, while tolerating his presence, YouTube have taken the view that he shouldn’t be allowed to monetise his activities on their platform. Elon Musk, capricious as ever, has decided to support Brand, despite, one suspects, not knowing that much about who the geezer is, let alone what he may have been up to.
Brand’s last stand is certainly a defiant one, if not flamboyant, as tends to be his way. The last refuge of a scoundrel in the social media age would seem to be Rumble, and from what I’ve seen, Brand is digging in there as eagerly as a front line of Russian infantry in Donbas faced with a high-intensity barrage by state-of-the-art rocketry. He has found a refuge, of sorts.
He’ll certainly need some strong lines of defence – and money. Lots of it.

Since Channel 4 and the mainstream media broke the accusations of rape, sexual assault and emotional abuse against him, more women have come forward, according to the Metropolitan Police, who said they have received a “number of allegations of sexual offences in London” as well as elsewhere in the country.

If he does end up in court then I imagine he knows full well that he will need huge sums to defend himself, as well as to maintain his lifestyle. Hence, presumably, the appeal on Rumble for his fans to subscribe to his channel at an annual fee of $60 (about £50). “You now know that I have been demonetised on YouTube... fully well aware that the government wrote to social media platforms to demand that I be further censored,” he said during the live broadcast. Reading between the not-so-opaque lines, this is how he makes his living and now that he is banned from monetising on YouTube, he has moved to Rumble where no such restriction currently applies. So please, he’s effectively saying, put your hand in your pockets and help a fella out.

He has about 6.6 million followers on YouTube, so if he persuades them to effectively payroll him by becoming paid subscribers he’ll do very nicely indeed. Better, certainly, than Dan Wooton did recently with his attempt to actively crowdfund a libel action against Byline Times, a “hard left blog [that] is on a deranged campaign of harassment designed to destroy me financially, mentally and professionally”.

Last time I looked, the GB News motormouth had managed to raise £39,313 of his £150,000 target. He wouldn’t get the best silks to get out of bed for that sort of pittance. Brand, we may assume, will fare better because he’s a far more established and famous name.

Brand’s critics will no doubt throw shade on his blatant bid for subscribers – and indeed this sort of behaviour should make one feel uncomfortable. Surely, if he is defending his honour – in the media and possibly in courtrooms – he should pay for his own campaign, if that is what he is doing, from his own funds? He is, one presumes, a very wealthy man. There’s something not quite right, not quite dignified, about him seemingly asking people far less well-off to pay for (one imagines) his hot-shot PR flunkies and lawyers.

No matter. The breaches in Brand’s digital barricades appear to be growing wider. His line that he’s a victim of some vast conspiracy stretching from Big Pharma to the House of Commons is (to me) risible, but, like Donald Trump has also found to his advantage it seems there are plenty of people out there prepared to believe him. So that part of the “front” might hold, and provide funding.

In my view, what should be more worrying for Brand is that so many of his defenders have adopted the line that they’re against “trial by media” and “cancel culture” and in favour of “free speech” – but only unless and until Brand is convicted in a court of law. If, in other words, Brand does end up on trial and his convicted – and that may be far away if it ever does come to pass

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ru ... 18739.html

"Brands Last Stand" - I suppose as it's him it will be a one night stand....

As for Dan Wooton, with friends like Laurence Fox then who needs enemies!

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/ ... nt-apology

[boing]

I tried to unravel the reporting on Brand only to find it was a great mess of bias and hear say. I can see him as having a chequered past but is there any actual verified, factual, evidence being offered against him because most of what I can find is unverified accusations from anonymous individuals which I am afraid does not impress me one little bit.

Assistance in the form of references to credible reporting would be appreciated.

.

[Boac]

Assistance in the form of references to credible reporting would be appreciated.

There is very little. I believe one actual complaint has been made to the UK police regarding something that happened many years ago, and has yet to be 'tried' by the police. This is definitely a 'guilty until proved innocent' stitch up orchestrated somewhere.

[llondel]

Trial by media again. He's not high on my list of favourite people, but yes, the media do like to go vilify people if it helps them sell papers.

[OneHungLow]

Assistance in the form of references to credible reporting would be appreciated.

There is very little. I believe one actual complaint has been made to the UK police regarding something that happened many years ago, and has yet to be 'tried' by the police. This is definitely a 'guilty until proved innocent' stitch up orchestrated somewhere.

Do you really think that The Times would risk the huge cost of losing a libel court case if there wasn't some substance to these accusations? They spent 4 years researching this case with Channel 4. I say let's see how this man fares in court.

"Stitch up, orchestrated!" Oh dear, conspiracy 101!

I must say that I never had you down as somebody who would go down the conspiracy theory rabbit hole, but then again, the constant barrage of the same on other subjects here is enough to make any rational man's mind turn to mush and go barking mad!

[ExSp33db1rd]

Woof ! Woof !