Russell Brand.

jigger said:
Well it’s not, but in theory Brand could avoided this situation. Brands attitude towards women and sex seems to be his issue. If only he understood women better.
Click to expand...
It's simple...his whole personality has just timed out. He tried the right wing mouth breathers as a final hurrah.
 
hurfdurf said:
“Why didn’t they come forward earlier!?” ask incel men who refuse to believe multiple detailed allegations, extensively reported, against a man who actually joked about this stuff on stage and on air.
Click to expand...

Well, Russell says he's innocent, some women claim he's done something. Why are you refusing to believe him but choosing to believe them? Is it impossible to make detailed false allegations?

Most reasonable people are simply saying take the case to the Police so it can be dealt with correctly rather than trial by media.
 
kitkat9933 said:
While I’m sure he is guilty, the fact YouTube have basically removed him till proven guilty in a court of law for what are till now unproven accusations is wrong and they need punished.
Click to expand...

You can't expect the private company to have to keep a financial relationship with someone accused of these things. In the same way you couldn't expect a sponsor to keep a relationship with someone under these circumstances. I'll be amazed if he ever seeing the inside of a court room so I expect once it blows over they'll remonetise his account.
 
Roar87 said:
Well, Russell says he's innocent, some women claim he's done something. Why are you refusing to believe him but choosing to believe them? Is it impossible to make detailed false allegations?

Most reasonable people are simply saying take the case to the Police so it can be dealt with correctly rather than trial by media.
Click to expand...
Because he has a track record personality of being a literal sex pest lol.

The Kevin Spacey one was much more debatable because he seemed like a stand up guy.

Russell's entire personality is being a sex pest.
 
All the men who think they’re making a clever counter-cultural point about how Russell Brand deserves a fair trial are just showing they don’t understand the difference between criminal proceedings and painstaking media investigation of multiple allegations of wrongdoing.

The evidence of wrongdoing is overwhelming. Whether it is criminal is a matter for the police and the justice system, not the media.

He’s not being tried (at least not yet). He’s being exposed by a newspaper/TV investigation. Just like other journalists investigations, such as the Notw hacking scandal or Weinstein before him (I’m sure the same rape apologists in this thread were defending him too). In both cases, there wouldn’t of been a police investigation with the good investigative journalism.
 
jigger said:
I thought he was the communist type. All I really know about Brand is he was a drug addict and liked to argue with nationalist.
Click to expand...
His gimmick expired with the audience he had at the time, so he begun COVID and Ukraine war conspiracy type stuff in 2020.
 
Roar87 said:
Well, Russell says he's innocent, some women claim he's done something. Why are you refusing to believe him but choosing to believe them? Is it impossible to make detailed false allegations?

Most reasonable people are simply saying take the case to the Police so it can be dealt with correctly rather than trial by media.
Click to expand...

Because I have critical thinking skills and don’t need someone else to tell me what to think when I’m presented evidence.

I’m not refusing the believe him, but at the moment he looks very guilty, I’m open to his defence when he makes it, but at present I know what I think.

Interesting that you can’t make a decision on things or judgment without some authority telling you what to think. Your really stupid forum posts make a lot of sense now within that context.
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
What is the real reason? Two days ago it was to shut him up because he supports Trump and could help him get elected. What is the new reason today?
Click to expand...

To stop his Youtube channel is what it seems like to me. It's been very well orchestrated and massively blown out of proportion, the media gave this more coverage than the Lucy Letby trial for gods sake.
 
Last edited:
hurfdurf said:
All the men who think they’re making a clever counter-cultural point about how Russell Brand deserves a fair trial are just showing they don’t understand the difference between criminal proceedings and painstaking media investigation of multiple allegations of wrongdoing.

The evidence of wrongdoing is overwhelming. Whether it is criminal is a matter for the police and the justice system, not the media.

He’s not being tried (at least not yet). He’s being exposed by a newspaper/TV investigation. Just like other journalists investigations, such as the Notw hacking scandal or Weinstein before him (I’m sure the same rape apologists in this thread were defending him too). In both cases, there wouldn’t of been a police investigation with the good investigative journalism.
Click to expand...
Its funny how those "investigative journalists" only target people of a specific gender, ethnicity, ideology and status when it come to these matters and when they get proven wrong they never issue a redaction or apology unless they're forced to.

I don't remember any "investigations" when Amy Schumer publicly admitted that she has sexually assaulted men in the past.
 
hurfdurf said:
Because I have critical thinking skills and don’t need someone else to tell me what to think when I’m presented evidence.

I’m not refusing the believe him, but at the moment he looks very guilty, I’m open to his defence when he makes it, but at present I know what I think.

Interesting that you can’t make a decision on things or judgment without some authority telling you what to think. Your really stupid forum posts make a lot of sense now within that context.
Click to expand...

What evidence have you been presented with? Some stories put together by Channel 4 with ominous music and a stitched together text message? I hope no one accuses you of anything out of character because you'll only have men like me coming to your defence, your own side will eat you up.
 
NZXT30 said:
Its funny how those "investigative journalists" only target people of a specific gender, ethnicity, ideology and status when it come to these matters and when they get proven wrong they never issue a redaction or apology unless they're forced to.

I don't remember any "investigations" when Amy Schumer publicly admitted that she has sexually assaulted men in the past.
Click to expand...
Women generally get their lives served up on a plate in different ways. It's much less likely they'll be prolific sex pests.

Bill Cosby didn't last long if you wanted a non white person.
 
Fubsy said:
He's not been given the opportunity to defend himself - or to put it another way, the opportunity was taken away when the case was dropped. Instead, in a limbo of neither guilty nor innocent. Then in a way, that's a punishment.

Edit: sorry for dragging us off topic.
Click to expand...

Its not limbo at all, you are innocent until proven guilty.

It's the simplest of concepts possible, absolutely no nuances.
 
NZXT30 said:
Its funny how those "investigative journalists" only target people of a specific gender, ethnicity, ideology and status when it come to these matters and when they get proven wrong they never issue a redaction or apology unless they're forced to.

I don't remember any "investigations" when Amy Schumer publicly admitted that she has sexually assaulted men in the past.
Click to expand...

I do, it was all over the internet.

And yes it’s always anti-establishment outsider figures like Russell Brand…. Prince Andrew Duke of York and Weinstein.

Or no it’s always men, like Dunham and Lizzo.

You have a terrible and selective memory and shouldn’t post due to this and how wrong you are.
 
dlockers said:
He hasn't been punished by anyone other than a private entity removing their support for him. That isn't 'punishment' in the sense a government can intervene.
Click to expand...

You're right. They can't. I'm just advocating the position that should not be tolerated by society, or at the very least questioned whether it's proportional considering the two possible outcomes: he did it or he didn't do it, no one actually knows at this point beyond Brand himself and the alleged victims. It is a form of preliminary punishment though, a sanction, could even roll out some terms and conditions maybe.

I'm also talking generally, not just Brand. What would happen to a regular guy if an accusation was made? I'd lose my job, my home, maybe my wife, all I've ever worked for. Damn right too if guilty, but what if you aren't? Some level of punishment has already been dished out before the cogs of justice have concluded. It doesn't sit right with me, it niggles and feels wrong, despite my understanding of the high levels of abuse and low conviction rates - it's such a tricky one, that I'm not surprised has all sorts of disagreements built in.
 
Roar87 said:
What evidence have you been presented with? Some stories put together by Channel 4 with ominous music and a stitched together text message? I hope no one accuses you of anything out of character because you'll only have men like me coming to your defence, your own side will eat you up.
Click to expand...

I have been, twice. If I had men coming like you to defend me I would assume I was guilty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom