Don’t know if these accusations are true or not, but there seems to be plenty on social media who are insistent there’s nothing to them - as far as I can seen, this judgement is being made solely on political grounds in most cases.
Printable View
Don’t know if these accusations are true or not, but there seems to be plenty on social media who are insistent there’s nothing to them - as far as I can seen, this judgement is being made solely on political grounds in most cases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
I thought I saw testimony from women who have stated what he did to them. He will say it was all consensual.
Not sure that is a defence - especially if one of the women was 16.
Russell Brand is the same person that had sex with the grand daughter of Andrew Sachs - and then did or tried to phone him up to tell him - class act.
Either way - people who like him will still go to his shows (if anyone will book him) and people who dont approve of his actions wont go to his shows.
Sounds like he's going to be a bit busy over the next few months.
There will be plenty who believe Brand is the victim of a ‘hatchet job’ because of his views but the person pedalling that view more than anyone is Brand himself.Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
Well he may or not be a nice person but is he guilty of serious sexual assault ?
He hasn't even been arrested yet
Neither was Jimmy Savile.Quote:
Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY
But that's captain hindsight againQuote:
Originally Posted by Jordi Culé
IF brand is guilty of sexual assaults then where were all these friends of these victims , the BBC , Channel 4 and have the police been informed
The Dispatches film making team reached out to lots of those who worked with Brand
If they knew what he was up to why has only one talked about these allegations publicly ?
If he's a serial sex offender he's the guilty man but there's a lot of people who have gone missing in action
Exactly the same as with Savile then.Quote:
Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY
Bob Geldof’s not a fan anyway.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ards-2006.html
I watched the Disptaches on Channel 4 and I' m not sure either way. He does not come off well at all in it.
All of the accusers hid their identity, and on every case he was already in a sexual relationship with them, but they've taken 10 years to make the allegations through the media, nothing has been raised to the police. While I agree its wrong, the 16 year admits it was legal (consensual sex at 16), but claims that in hindsight that she feels the law shouldn't allow it.
They draw on a lot of content from his stand up shows and book entries to corroborate the claims. He has always been open about his sexual attitude and behaviour, and he was voted shagger of the year 3 years on the bounce. 1000's of women were contacted by the media to dig up dirt, and there's videos online of ex partners saying they were contacted by The Times and Channel 4 but their accounts were not used as it didn't fit the narrative. There's a lack of a dissenting voice.
But he was clearly a narcissistic sex addict. They claimed he was bedding 5 girls a day on a working, women from the audience or staff. Things were different 15 years ago. Questions have to be put to the industry, who appeared to allow his behaviour.
There's the conspiracy theorists claiming he was too close to 'the truth', he has been talking openly about things like how taxpayers funded the vaccines, but big pharma have taken all the profits, creating dozens of billionaires. The timing of this does make you wonder, when the reporting against Prince Andrew, Epstein, even Huw Edwards and Schofield, is/was so much softer.
We'll see if police investigate, some of the claims are really serious, which makes it all the more odd they have not reported it to the police first.
In error.Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueArmy 86
Was the reporting against Epstein and Andrew softer? They took a right pasting in the press, and rightly so, because they are disgusting vermin.Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueArmy 86
As for Huw Edwards, what he is meant to have got up to is nothing compared to what the other 3 have been accused of. He got an absolute hammering for a few naughty pics.
Yes there's a circus around these brand allegations, but i'd hardly say he's copping it worse than the other 3 you mentioned
Epstein was arrested (2nd time!!! in 2019) 4 years on his the client list still hasn't been officially revealed, I wonder why.Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisp_1927
Clue, the flight logs of the Lolita Express would be a good place to start!!!.
It wasn't until after his arrest and conviction that Epstein got pelters. Prince Andrew gets a big fat pass.Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisp_1927
We could ask Katy Perry , married to this mouthy turd 2010-2012. Then he went on a spree of sexual abuse ( apparently)
They said that with regards to Hugh Edwards as well...Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
It's Huw.Quote:
Originally Posted by pipster
Sadly if he is guilty the case could collapse due to the media frenzy his defence will argue he's been convicted in the public eye ,therefore no jury can deliver with an open mind . What's wrong with woman hanging with a well documented self-confessed sex addict
How did they?Quote:
Originally Posted by pipster
There's a couple of sides to this story isn't there;
Firstly the public interest side; accusations made, insights given into his past, his personality and relationships etc. That is in the public interest in my opinion as they are serious or shocking, and that also goes for Phillip Schofield and Huw Edwards.
The other side is the legal side of it. Now the accusations are very serious but they are only accusations at this point. I can see why companies don't want to be associated with him at the moment, but I'm very uncomfortable with this removal of past programmes and things from websites.
Noel Clarke is currently using the guardian for £10m over similar stories.
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-66122841
Kevin Spacey was also cleared of allegations against him
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/...lting-four-men
I've no doubt Russell Brand has treated many women badly but we need to remember the principle of innocence until proven guilty and saying that isn't a defence of him, it's a defence of the rule of law and basic liberal society as we have known for centuries.
Ooooh would expose too many presidents nah lets lock up a Brits and put a prince in court , biggest USA cover up ever only ,thankfully they had some great UK scapegoats , not a single USA citizens was involved ,marvellous fair stuff ..Quote:
Originally Posted by Heathblue
And yes Maxwell should be in jail along with many more ,sadly those ex presidents ,not Trump , and wives were immune .
Are there any Heddlu in the house?Quote:
Originally Posted by life on mars
If so, can a S.136 of the Mental Health Act be considered?
Didn’t Maxwell have links to Mossad ?Quote:
Originally Posted by life on mars
Will be interesting to see if the establishment go after Neil Oliver next, I'm hedging that a deep dive is already in play.
Oliver has similar views to Brand on digital banking/currency, human trafficking, Vaccines etc. etc.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">🗣️Rumble releases statement refusing to demonetize Russell Brand based on accusations alone <br><br>The UK Gov’t has unleashed a coordinated attack on Brand’s livelihood after allegations of sexual assault were published<br><br>He hasn’t been charged or convicted, yet they are sending… <a href="https://t.co/tf9Kb3LCum">pic.twitter.com/tf9Kb3LCum</a></p>— DC_Draino (@DC_Draino) <a href="https://twitter.com/DC_Draino/status/1704601292876796376?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 20, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The establishment. Jesus man you have a problem. The man's a creep, and his past is catching up with him. That's the beginning and end of the situation. Can't believe people fall for this crap.Quote:
Originally Posted by Heathblue
I'd say less are than I expected to. Besides the reaction to the allegations made in the programme over the weekend, I've also seen it suggested that Brand's change of persona when it comes to politics can be put down to a calculated decision to cultivate a different type of following as a preparation for what he knew was coming regarding the allegations as to his sexual behaviour, could it be that a proportion of those who have supported and followed him since he became an "anti establishment wellness guru" have realised that they were being used by someone who might just be a grifter out to exploit them?Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisp_1927
Was reading something similar and thought it was quite an interesting idea. Certainly makes you wonder, must be useful for these people to have a ready made crowd that will believe they are being persecuted for 'telling the truth'.Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
I do also wonder with Brand if it's just a case of him being so narcissistic and egotistical that he thinks he's better than others, leading to him thinking he knows better than 'the experts' and that he can do what he wants with women.
Ironically enough, that theory on Brand is itself a conspiracy theory, no?Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
Yes it is, us sheeple are also allowed to indulge occasionally you know.Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
Yes The establishment, if you do not think it exists then you have a problem, I wouldn't piss on the bloke if he was on fire, from what I have read, complaints were made years ago but amounted to nothing, (he was in the establishment then and just like the Epstein client list has been protected) but he's been gobbing off on things that he shouldn't, has crossed the line so he's been reeled in, yes his past is catching up with him but IMO, if he'd not being going on about vaccines n'stuff then business as usual.Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisp_1927
You are all as bad as eachother!Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
What seems strange is that Huw Edwards engages a 17 year old boy to perform on a web cam - the bbc said they couldnt reveal the name, no media outlets were allowed to reveal his name - until Edwards wife tells everyone.
Russell Brand - someone makes an allegation - The dispatches program then repeats those allegations and the media and bbc are all over it like a rash.
Seems some what double standards to me.
The Russell Brand story was a joint investigation by the Times, Sunday Times and Dispatches over several years. One of the Times journos even had a year off in the middle to have a baby then rejoined the investigation. Not sure when the allegation you mentioned was made, but the article and programme have certainly encouraged more to come forward.Quote:
Originally Posted by pipster
I haven't heard if any others have come forward with allegations about Huw Edwards, so it doesn't seem like double standards to me.
Internal bbc staff have made complaints about Edwards but nothing was done - according a very good friend who works at the beeb in cardiff. internal investigation though not criminal.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Bloop
So if it's an investigation about an allegation - then they can broadcast it no matter what. But if a kid's parents complaining to bbc and the Police - then it cant be reported on ? - I find that strange.
Seems the great anti establishment man Russell Brand has friends in high places.
https://youtu.be/wDFlIGTEyvs?si=VZdlN35eVJpOFcDL
CAN WE MERGE THESE TWO THREADS PLEASE