Russell Brand faces allegations of rape, sexual assaults & abuse

[Kurve]

MET POLICE CRIMES - London
JIMMY SAVILE

 

[tandino]

So you knew did you?

I never said I did, but I'm not in the entertainment industry.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

I never said I did, but I'm not in the entertainment industry.

Either are the Guardian jounalists. I think a big problem was the money and Brand had with his lawyers.
There was a few cases discussed where Brand threatened to sue women who were accusing him in the past.
He's finished now anyway. He can only make money from the cookers now . Youtube have stopped him monetising his channel and he will be unemployable from now on.

 

[StingBitten]

Self-confessed Russell Brand fan.

Was too young to remember the hanky panky years but he was a pivotal figure in my life from 2013 (following the Paxman interview) - 2020 (COVID and the conspiratorial-turn).

I enjoyed his social and political in my mid-20s (restructuring society and repositioning ourselves in society), his spiritual and meditative ethos, and all round humour and intellect. He even visited WA in 2014/15 and had a broad interest in Indigenous rights among a range of other important social issues.

I'm not an expert, but I deem this period to be highly authentic and generous - his dedication to supporting drug addict recovery has also been well documented.

With that said, reading the article with the comprehensive list of allegations is very worrisome. If it were a conspiracy, then it's one of the most expertly carried out conspiracies ever conceived - the scale and resources put into this are enormous. But, they're allegations.

Unfortunately I don't expect to see, hear or read many objective views in this case - all too often nowadays things will be split down the ever expanding left and right side of politics. He has effectively been judged, hung and executed by the left-wing media and supporters (people erroneously assume Brand is a right-winger due to holding discussions with Rogan, Harris and Peterson), and we're already seeing the stacks-on by every corner of the internet from people who 'always knew' Brand was a pest.

The other side of those are people who love Brand (like me) defending him against the blind face of reason.

Many questions floating around - is Brand a rapist? Was he a womaniser who pushed the boundaries to the absolute limit (but not a 'technical' criminal)? Is this all or mostly bullshit?

And if he's not a rapist but he was an awful pest, could be be forgiven if he truly changed afterwards?

I might come off like a tool here but it's hard grappling to imagine someone you really respect isn't who you thought they were.

 

[Gralin]

Revealed: Russell Brand Exited Comedy Central’s ‘Roast Battle’ After Facing Sexual Predator Claims On-Camera

Russell Brand's last major TV job in the UK on 'Roast Battle' ended with him being dropped after he was accused of being a "sexual predator."

deadline.com

 

[Gralin]

Self-confessed Russell Brand fan.

I was a fan, partner was a fan, we saw him live around 10 years ago and there was large ickiness at the show where he wandered the audience and cracked onto teenage girls there with parents as a "joke" which was really uncomfortable to be there for

Was too young to remember the hanky panky years but he was a pivotal figure in my life from 2013 (following the Paxman interview) - 2020 (COVID and the conspiratorial-turn).

I didn't pay attention to him for years, he'd be in a movie but other than that I'd not come across him until he popped up grifting to wellness and right wingers

I enjoyed his social and political in my mid-20s (restructuring society and repositioning ourselves in society), his spiritual and meditative ethos, and all round humour and intellect. He even visited WA in 2014/15 and had a broad interest in Indigenous rights among a range of other important social issues.

I think he's an absolute cliche "spiritual" predator dude, he might even be the reason the cliche exists.

I'm not an expert, but I deem this period to be highly authentic and generous - his dedication to supporting drug addict recovery has also been well documented.

Predators are people, they can do good things, that doesn't mean they aren't also predators.
They also groom character references like they do victims.
It's impossible to know what is actually genuine other than his genuine desire to have what he wants regardless of consent.

With that said, reading the article with the comprehensive list of allegations is very worrisome. If it were a conspiracy, then it's one of the most expertly carried out conspiracies ever conceived - the scale and resources put into this are enormous. But, they're allegations.

It's pretty simple. It's not a conspiracy, he's a piece of s**t, and he's been one on such a large scale that the resources put into covering that up weren't able to continue doing so.

There is nothing unusual about the accusations against him, it's a common story.

Unfortunately I don't expect to see, hear or read many objective views in this case - all too often nowadays things will be split down the ever expanding left and right side of politics.

That you see this as a political issue says it all about why he has done what he has in the last five years since he got repeatedly accused by co workers after #metoo kicked off.
He's cultivated a fan base that is willing to believe he's being falsely accused because of what he says.

Funnily enough the accusations existed before he started saying that stuff.

He has effectively been judged, hung and executed by the left-wing media and supporters

Actually none of that has happened.

(people erroneously assume Brand is a right-winger due to holding discussions with Rogan, Harris and Peterson),

He's profiting off the right by pandering to their views, whether he believes it or not is immaterial, he's saying it for clout and money and others believe him

and we're already seeing the stacks-on by every corner of the internet from people who 'always knew' Brand was a pest.

He wrote about it in his book. It was part of his stand up. His whole persona was I'm a bad boy sex addict who won't take no for an answer haha no but really

The other side of those are people who love Brand (like me) defending him against the blind face of reason.

You do not know him, you've developed a parasocial relationship and you sound like an Andrew Tate supporter, incidentally someone else who supports Brand

Many questions floating around - is Brand a rapist?

Yes

Was he a womaniser who pushed the boundaries to the absolute limit

Yes

(but not a 'technical' criminal)? Is this all or mostly bullshit?

No he's crossed the line and if you're asking that question you know it but don't want to admit it

And if he's not a rapist but he was an awful pest, could be be forgiven if he truly changed afterwards?

But he is a rapist and he preyed on minors

I might come off like a tool here but it's hard grappling to imagine someone you really respect isn't who you thought they were.

Yes it's hard but you'll be better for doing it

 

[BFew]

But he is a rapist

Allegedly

 

[jason_recliner]

It has been an open secret within the comedy industry by the sounds of it. Like I say , I wised up to it after Katherine Ryan's interview.
I don't think blaming proper journalists is correct if they didn't know or didn't have evidence. Blaming the Guardian exclusively is ridiculous when you have no evidence they knew until recently.
If you're saying the Guardian are rape apologists you're on the wrong track. Thankfully Channel 4 did a 2 year investigation and provided witness testomony, so in the end the good journalists exposed him.

I'm not blaming the guardian, not calling them rape apologists, they're as bad as any other rag. They promoted, at best, an avowed misogynist to make a buck like any other MSM.

 

[jason_recliner]

I never said I did, but I'm not in the entertainment industry.

Either are the Guardian jounalists.

Yes they clearly are.

 

[owen87]

Self-confessed Russell Brand fan.

Was too young to remember the hanky panky years but he was a pivotal figure in my life from 2013 (following the Paxman interview) - 2020 (COVID and the conspiratorial-turn).

I enjoyed his social and political in my mid-20s (restructuring society and repositioning ourselves in society), his spiritual and meditative ethos, and all round humour and intellect. He even visited WA in 2014/15 and had a broad interest in Indigenous rights among a range of other important social issues.

I'm not an expert, but I deem this period to be highly authentic and generous - his dedication to supporting drug addict recovery has also been well documented.

With that said, reading the article with the comprehensive list of allegations is very worrisome. If it were a conspiracy, then it's one of the most expertly carried out conspiracies ever conceived - the scale and resources put into this are enormous. But, they're allegations.

Unfortunately I don't expect to see, hear or read many objective views in this case - all too often nowadays things will be split down the ever expanding left and right side of politics. He has effectively been judged, hung and executed by the left-wing media and supporters (people erroneously assume Brand is a right-winger due to holding discussions with Rogan, Harris and Peterson), and we're already seeing the stacks-on by every corner of the internet from people who 'always knew' Brand was a pest.

The other side of those are people who love Brand (like me) defending him against the blind face of reason.

Many questions floating around - is Brand a rapist? Was he a womaniser who pushed the boundaries to the absolute limit (but not a 'technical' criminal)? Is this all or mostly bullshit?

And if he's not a rapist but he was an awful pest, could be be forgiven if he truly changed afterwards?

I might come off like a tool here but it's hard grappling to imagine someone you really respect isn't who you thought they were.

What objective views would you like?

I have no particular feelings toward Brand, I've seen little-to-nothing of his stuff outside of the major movies he appeared in.

What I do know is we have four, that's now five, different people who've provided their accounts of behaviour that goes well beyond being an 'awful pest'. These people told others at the time, they reported to hospitals at the time, they even spoke to police at the time and declined to pursue things because of the noteriety of the accused and the highly unlikely possibility of obtaining any kind of conviction against him.

Perhaps it's simply a case of someone who's a highly public figure that you really only know what is put out in public by that person or people associated with them, not being in private who they promote themselves to be?

It's not complex or complicated, you can like an artists work without liking the artist. You can think that person is one way and be wrong about them.

More than likely this is yet another example of a celebrity getting away with appalling behaviour and highly likely having committed crimes against women for far, far too long due to the public profile, wealth and influence they have.

This isn't the first time the above has happened, it also won't be the last.

 

[fortunatecrow]

I'd probs call Brand a c*** too in public, any excuse would do if I knew he was sleazing on to my 16yo daughter.

Rod Stewart fronted him about his own daughter, but older than 16 I think.

 

[Osho]

I always thought Brand was unfunny, verbose, and slightly grotesque. He popped up in films, I was confused as I didn't see the talent.

I think, assume, he was identified by certain employers as providing "young folk cred" to their entity. Why else hire him? Not funny, not especially smart etc.

I've only seen snippets recently of his channel and interviews. My smarm - sleaze - disingenuous alarm goes into hyperactivity each time, it's like a visceral reaction, uncontrolled and automatic. Like a thermostat switch. The nutty pompous word salads, and barrage of adjectives seemed ridiculous, even off putting. By using so many words in random frenetic order, it was superficially impressive, but really, he said nothing. Then I thought, to each their own. Millions obviously liked him.

It was interesting the reporters gave him 8 days to respond before publishing. Normally 1 or 2 days are given to reduce the likelihood of an injunction being sought. It was rather generous and unusual. I suppose it indicates a certain confidence and thoroughness in their reporting.

Thank goodness for the fourth estate.

 

[Osho]

I'd probs call Brand a c*** too in public, any excuse would do if I knew he was sleazing on to my 16yo daughter.

Brand now has 3 (?) children under 8. Perspectives often quickly shift when you have children. I wonder if his have?

 

[owen87]

I always thought Brand was unfunny, verbose, and slightly grotesque. He popped up in films, I was confused as I didn't see the talent.

I think, assume, he was identified by certain employers as providing "young folk cred" to their entity. Why else hire him? Not funny, not especially smart etc.

I've only seen snippets recently of his channel and interviews. My smarm - sleaze - disingenuous alarm goes into hyperactivity each time, it's like a visceral reaction, uncontrolled and automatic. Like a thermostat switch. The nutty pompous word salads, and barrage of adjectives seemed ridiculous, even off putting. By using so many words in random frenetic order, it was superficially impressive, but really, he said nothing. Then I thought, to each their own. Millions obviously liked him.

It was interesting the reporters gave him 8 days to respond before publishing. Normally 1 or 2 days are given to reduce the likelihood of an injunction being sought. It was rather generous and unusual. I suppose it indicates a certain confidence and thoroughness in their reporting.

Thank goodness for the fourth estate.

I think the word salad thing confuses people in to thinking he's got some kind of high level of intelligence.

Usually I've found, those who most understand a topic are able to articulate their points concisely and in plain English when talking to a wider audience. Brand does none of that.

 

[Beerfish]

I always thought Brand was unfunny, verbose, and slightly grotesque. He popped up in films, I was confused as I didn't see the talent.

I think, assume, he was identified by certain employers as providing "young folk cred" to their entity. Why else hire him? Not funny, not especially smart etc.

I've only seen snippets recently of his channel and interviews. My smarm - sleaze - disingenuous alarm goes into hyperactivity each time, it's like a visceral reaction, uncontrolled and automatic. Like a thermostat switch. The nutty pompous word salads, and barrage of adjectives seemed ridiculous, even off putting. By using so many words in random frenetic order, it was superficially impressive, but really, he said nothing. Then I thought, to each their own. Millions obviously liked him.

It was interesting the reporters gave him 8 days to respond before publishing. Normally 1 or 2 days are given to reduce the likelihood of an injunction being sought. It was rather generous and unusual. I suppose it indicates a certain confidence and thoroughness in their reporting.

Thank goodness for the fourth estate.

This seems like a roundabout way of saying that now he's an alleged rapist you feel vindicated in never having found him entertaining to start with.

 

[Osho]

I think the word salad thing confuses people in to thinking he's got some kind of high level of intelligence.

Usually I've found, those who most understand a topic are able to articulate their points concisely and in plain English when talking to a wider audience. Brand does none of that.

I suppose some folk communicate in an extremely opaque manner, but still know what they are talking about. Kant. Hegel.

It is indeed a gift though, when expertise and clear concise communication meet.

And a great bane when there is neither, aka, Russel Brand.

 

[Osho]

This seems like a roundabout way of saying that now he's an alleged rapist you feel vindicated in never having found him entertaining to start with.

Why would you be so ... assumptive? I have no real idea whether he is guilty or not. I'm willing to see how it unfolds.

 

[Beerfish]

Why would you be so ... assumptive? I have no real idea whether he is guilty or not. I'm willing to see how it unfolds.

Like I said that's how your post reads to me. Fair enough if that's not what you meant.

 

[mr bagcroft]

Allegedly

yep,lol.
Most Probably guilty.
But **** like Granlin, who have absolutely no idea what has actually happened, can come out and decry someone as guilty....well that's half the problem with the world today !

 

[owen87]

yep,lol.
Most Probably guilty.
But **** like Granlin, who have absolutely no idea what has actually happened, can come out and decry someone as guilty....well that's half the problem with the world today !

Half the problem with the world today is that people can have an opinion? That's a big call given opinions aren't exactly a recent invention.

 

[Gralin]

Half the problem with the world today is that people can have an opinion? That's a big call given opinions aren't exactly a recent invention.

 

[Gralin]

yep,lol.
Most Probably guilty.
But **** like Granlin, who have absolutely no idea what has actually happened, can come out and decry someone as guilty....well that's half the problem with the world today !

oh no anonymous poster on a football forum thinks someone with credible accusations of rape against them from multiple sources is guilty
this is whats wrong with the world, not that a rapist has spent years preying on women and girls with his lawyers threatening to sue anyone who speaks up about it

maybe you haven't read much of the Time article which I will point out would have been vetted by the lawyers as only including the stuff they could defend in court in defamation proceedings

It included him telling a girl in high school that he didn't care if she was 12 he just needed to know where he stood legally

but yeah me saying mean things about him online is the real issue isn't it

 

[mr bagcroft]

oh no anonymous poster on a football forum thinks someone with credible accusations of rape against them from multiple sources is guilty
this is whats wrong with the world, not that a rapist has spent years preying on women and girls with his lawyers threatening to sue anyone who speaks up about it

maybe you haven't read much of the Time article which I will point out would have been vetted by the lawyers as only including the stuff they could defend in court in defamation proceedings

It included him telling a girl in high school that he didn't care if she was 12 he just needed to know where he stood legally

but yeah me saying mean things about him online is the real issue isn't it

Yep, you don't actually KNOW a single damn thing.

 

[mr bagcroft]

Half the problem with the world today is that people can have an opinion? That's a big call given opinions aren't exactly a recent invention.

Lambasting someone as guilty....as just "having an opnion" whilst essentially true, is a stretch.

 

[Kurve]

yep,lol.
Most Probably guilty.
But **** like Granlin, who have absolutely no idea what has actually happened, can come out and decry someone as guilty....well that's half the problem with the world today !

For mine, a big part of the problem is rapists and sex pests hiding behind the 'presumption of innocence' and running the old 'if you can't prove it, it didn't happen' line and those who support them doing the same thing when they could just shut up.

Instead they want to jump out calling women liars etc, and it makes me wonder what skeletons they've got rattling around in their closets.

 

[mr bagcroft]

For mine, a big part of the problem is rapists and sex pests hiding behind the 'presumption of innocence' and running the old 'if you can't prove it, it didn't happen' line and those who support them doing the same thing when they could just shut up.

Instead they want to jump out calling women liars etc, and it makes me wonder what skeletons they've got rattling around in their closets.

Agree totally with all that.
But we also cant have people hung and quartered prior to trial , thats not how the world works.