Russell Brand.

Raz · 22 Sep 2023 at 17:01

What is this thread even about anymore.

It's simple, there's a chance that some famous guy sexually assaulted some women. Not the first time it's happened, and unfortunately not the last. In this crazy world we live in, even non-famous men sexually assault women - regardless of their political beliefs or whether they believe in lizard people.

Sythe79 · 22 Sep 2023 at 17:02

Colonel_Klinck said:
Roar doesn't want to hear that. As far as he's concerned Brand is waking people up to the truth and there is a conspiracy to silence him, in part because he might help elect Trump in 2024.

Isn't it more likely there was a conspiracy to keep his misdeeds out of the newspapers when he was part of the "mainstream". Now he isn't, there are no powerful people who feel the need to protect him ?

Roar87 · 22 Sep 2023 at 17:08

Colonel_Klinck said:
Roar doesn't want to hear that. As far as he's concerned Brand is waking people up to the truth and there is a conspiracy to silence him, in part because he might help elect Trump in 2024.

Yeah, it's a pretty popular opinion that this is an attempt to cancel him based on his Youtube content, a letter from a government commitee to Youtube and Rumble prior to him actually having any charges pressed would seem to support that.

Colonel_Klinck · 22 Sep 2023 at 17:15

Sythe79 said:
Isn't it more likely there was a conspiracy to keep his misdeeds out of the newspapers when he was part of the "mainstream". Now he isn't, there are no powerful people who feel the need to protect him ?

This is likely much closer to the truth. Sadly he won't be the last person to have PR protect them and their misdeeds.

Colonel_Klinck · 22 Sep 2023 at 17:20

Roar87 said:
Yeah, it's a pretty popular opinion that this is an attempt to cancel him based on his Youtube content, a letter from a government commitee to Youtube and Rumble prior to him actually having any charges pressed would seem to support that.

Well I'm glad you aren't denying it.

Pretty popular opinion in conspiracy circles I'm sure. I'm sure the state is terrified of his ramblings, just like they are Alex Jones.

Its a committee with zero power. I do agree that they probably shouldn't be doing it. I would be interested to know if they often do this, if they do then maybe it is genuinely part of their work.

jigger · 22 Sep 2023 at 17:24

silvagti said:
The problem is, as we’ve seen, allowing anonymity for one party and not the other essentially places all the power into the hands of those making the anonymous accusations and the media themselves.

The accused effectively is denied any ability to defend themselves because they literally don’t know who’s accused them (assuming the allegation is false).

I know some have suggested that both accuser and accused should both be anonymous. However, I don’t think it’s viable for any justice system to have cases conducted behind closed doors as it destroys faith in the process due to the lack of transparency.

The parties will be named in court. Brand made a statement defending himself.

GGizmo · 22 Sep 2023 at 17:25

Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
Stop trying to paint everything as black or white

The correct answer is the claim should be weighed up based on likelyhood and the immediately available information.

I'm not sure if this is satire or a serious post?

Mercenary Keyboard Warrior · 22 Sep 2023 at 17:25

Colonel_Klinck said:
Well I'm glad you aren't denying it.

Pretty popular opinion in conspiracy circles I'm sure. I'm sure the state is terrified of his ramblings, just like they are Alex Jones.

Its a committee with zero power. I do agree that they probably shouldn't be doing it. I would be interested to know if they often do this, if they do then maybe it is genuinely part of their work.

I am most interested in whether the government went to the hastle of getting the fake acqusations in from the start and the rest was planned all along
or if they have just taken this opportunity as presented

Its unclear, I dont think the tin foil wearers have aligned their views yet

I mean if they really wanted to silence him they would have just given him the COVID jab.

jigger · 22 Sep 2023 at 17:27

Sythe79 said:
Isn't it more likely there was a conspiracy to keep his misdeeds out of the newspapers when he was part of the "mainstream". Now he isn't, there are no powerful people who feel the need to protect him ?

How mainstream was Brand four years ago?

Mercenary Keyboard Warrior · 22 Sep 2023 at 17:28

BowdonUK said:
I'm not sure if this is satire or a serious post?

Its 100% serious

Whether you believe there is any seriousness in an aqusation very much should depend on who is saying what about who and what they can show to prove it

Like when the morons went full CT nutjob on N Bulley and some started going on about why were the police not giving them equal weight.
yeah those people

silvagti · 22 Sep 2023 at 17:43

jigger said:
The parties will be named in court.

let’s wait and see if that happens because I have my doubts!

Roar87 · 22 Sep 2023 at 17:43

Colonel_Klinck said:
Well I'm glad you aren't denying it.

Pretty popular opinion in conspiracy circles I'm sure. I'm sure the state is terrified of his ramblings, just like they are Alex Jones.

Its a committee with zero power. I do agree that they probably shouldn't be doing it. I would be interested to know if they often do this, if they do then maybe it is genuinely part of their work.

I mean if you check most social media posts you'll find a large majority share my opinion, the only exception I've seen was unsurprisingly reddit.

Sythe79 · 22 Sep 2023 at 17:48

jigger said:
How mainstream was Brand four years ago?

I've no idea, I've not followed his career that closely. He certainly was at the time period we are talking about, The BBC, channel 4 some major US studios.

He does seem the type to have upset enough people that as soon as they felt he wasn't protected any more they would have the knifes out, without some deep state plan to take him out.

jigger · 22 Sep 2023 at 17:49

silvagti said:
let’s wait and see if that happens because I have my doubts!

I don’t see how it makes much difference. The content of the articles are what they are. Brand made a statement before the article went out and situation would have been no different.

jigger · 22 Sep 2023 at 17:51

Sythe79 said:
I've no idea, I've not followed his career that closely. He certainly was at the time period we are talking about, The BBC, channel 4 some major US studios.

He does seem the type to have upset enough people that as soon as they felt he wasn't protected any more they would have the knifes out, without some deep state plan to take him out.

I don’t subscribe to this conspiracy at all TBH, but who did Brand upset around 4 years ago.

jigger · 22 Sep 2023 at 17:58

Roar87 said:
Yeah I've heard what the actor voicing the accuser said, I've heard the show, I haven't heard his account of events though.

Brand claims innocence. Calls the article egregious.

Sythe79 · 22 Sep 2023 at 18:04

jigger said:
I don’t subscribe to this conspiracy at all TBH, but who did Brand upset around 4 years ago.

I don't think he upset anyone in particular 4 years ago, he probably upset lots of people in general over his 20 odd years in the media. It's only in the last 3 or 4 he isn't making anyone powerful enough to make these stories go away any money.

Zatoichi.uK · 22 Sep 2023 at 18:05

The Andrew Sachs incident certainly wasn't his greatest idea.

jigger · 22 Sep 2023 at 18:08

Sythe79 said:
I don't think he upset anyone in particular 4 years ago, he probably upset lots of people in general over his 20 odd years in the media. It's only in the last 3 or 4 he isn't making anyone powerful enough to make these stories go away any money.

I think a story has come over a desk and journalists have investigated Brand and his behaviour.

mattx4 · 22 Sep 2023 at 18:13

jigger said:
I don’t subscribe to this conspiracy at all TBH, but who did Brand upset around 4 years ago.

He's previously called out Rupert Murdock a few times.

Russell Brand takes on Rupert Murdoch over mogul's own tax dealings

In his latest episode of The Trews, the comedian turns the "hypocrite" tag back on The Sun and the tax affairs of its proprietor

www.independent.co.uk

Russell Brand demands action against Rupert Murdoch’s media empire in Ed Miliband Trews interview

In the much-awaited interview, Russell Brand has asked how potential prime minister and Labour leader Ed Miliband will tackle issues of media ownership, in particular mogul Rupert Murdoch’s sizable holdings.

www.thedrum.com

I'm sure Rupe isn't the type of person to hold grudges and misuse his media empires power.

Also 4 years ago was prime me too time so I wouldn't be surprised if someone was looking into Brand I would assume if C4 caught wind of it they would probably realize they are exposed for enabling him for many years and wouldn't want the headline to be C4 harboured serial sex pest for years. So change the narrative and have it as C4 expose sex pest.

Now these companies can't just print lies and rumors they know better than that and the UK has strict libel laws so that's why it's taken 4 years to gather this evidence to ensure it's going to hold up in court because brand has been litigious previously.