Soldato
I thought people were just arguing against trial by social media.
Can we make our minds up please.
Russell Brand.
- Thread starter Von Smallhausen
- Start date
I thought people were just arguing against trial by social media.
Can we make our minds up please.
probably, I did say the more likely conspiracy theory, if you were to subscribe to their being one.
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 proprietorwww.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.
Yeah, wouldn’t put anything past old Rupert Murdock.
Brand is part of the big lie my dude considering all his silly little fanbase does is sit there and whine all day about how the 'man' is out to get them... yet do precisely nothing about it.If people want to know the mind set of government control, including calling people conspiracy theorists, read some books by the Nazis. In particular what they say about the big lie. No wonder governments these days try to ban the books.
Big lie - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Soldato
There was an interesting post by Konstantin Kisin on Twitter and he makes a good post. It's something I've run in to many times on this forum. That many people can't de-personalise a subject and talk about the principle. The same people do it so often I'm beginning to think they aren't capable.
It was perfectly reasonable to ask questions. There were ex police on the tv media asking the same questions. For some reason asking questions is now considered questioning authority = bad?
But I think your point is more about jumping to conclusions to soon? If so, then aren't the people who immediately believe an accusation against Brand to be true without due process the morons in this situation?
I haven't listened to Brand in years. I really only remember him from the channel 4 days. His wholes style was aggressive flirting. It was obvious why he was getting away with it back then. Because he was the maverick of the left confronting the "fash" as he would probably have said it. His Nazi Boy documentary with Mark Collett, who is still around leading his own far right group. Also confronting Farage on QT etc.
But the debate position of saying he's a nobody makes the situation even worst. I don't understand the motive for saying it. It is more understandable the actions if you consider him a well known person, even if you don't agree with his views. If you don't acknowledge that then you're saying the government picked on a nobody.
OkIts 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
It was perfectly reasonable to ask questions. There were ex police on the tv media asking the same questions. For some reason asking questions is now considered questioning authority = bad?
But I think your point is more about jumping to conclusions to soon? If so, then aren't the people who immediately believe an accusation against Brand to be true without due process the morons in this situation?
I haven't listened to Brand in years. I really only remember him from the channel 4 days. His wholes style was aggressive flirting. It was obvious why he was getting away with it back then. Because he was the maverick of the left confronting the "fash" as he would probably have said it. His Nazi Boy documentary with Mark Collett, who is still around leading his own far right group. Also confronting Farage on QT etc.
But the debate position of saying he's a nobody makes the situation even worst. I don't understand the motive for saying it. It is more understandable the actions if you consider him a well known person, even if you don't agree with his views. If you don't acknowledge that then you're saying the government picked on a nobody.
Soldato
Soldato
You mean if I were to check out your social media I would find that. I don't follow the same people as you and my lists likely aren't the same as yours. I do follow some conspiracy theorists accounts just to see what is going on in that world but I am not seeing what you are seeing in what I would term normal Twitter. The vast majority of my follows are journalists, a fair few anti MAGA former Republicans, sport, space and tech.
I'm mostly talking about the comments on stories put out by popular media outlets, I was sure your Twitter was a veritable echo chamber of your opinions but thanks for clarifying.
Soldato
Basically yes.
I form my opinions based on coverage in these sorts of thing, and from the limited amount of information available to us.
The moment I see someone going its because woke or something like that I see someone who is not. And I am not saying its only on one side either.
There are some here who will 100% flip the other way.
Again my point is we all have to form a position (if we choose) to based on something
I try to, look at the likelyhood of whats being said in the public domain, I don't immediately start saying they have been paid off or stuff like that as we saw some resort to in the Huw thread. As soon as someone has to resort to that its clear they are not objectively looking at the data/facts they are trying to form a reason to support their already preconceived position.
The tate thread is the same, its a setup, they will frame him, stuff like that. Do you honestly think these people are balancing what they are saying against facts/info etc , or are they just saying what they want to be the truth.
So back to Brand.
"hes a comedian he says funny" well lets not debate the funny part, but its not a get out of jail free excuse.
"its a stitch up the [insert big brother]" are out to get him. See at this point I realise again they cannot be taken seriously. I mean I know many of them will lack much real world experiance outside a call centre or McDonalds but IF the government seriously wanted Brand done for they would have no issue doing so. Hes a self proclaimed ex drug addict. If he just suddenly broke on the news as shock Horror as Russell Brand found dead from a drug overdose many people would go "ah bless, pour soul taken so early like so many". They dont need to go anywhere near setting him up with fake rape claims etc, they can 100% do him if they wanted to.
Anyway my view, and its consistent and unchanged so far. Hes a self confessed sex addict. So assuming hes not a perpetual liar and thats true, then I find it pretty darn credible that at some point hes gone too far against a womans wishes. Its not a stretch really is it.
I am not saying I think hes guilty, I am not saying i think hes innocent. On balance of probabilities I am saying I think its likely, but its by no means clearly on way nor the other.
Anyone whos saying its fake, hes not guilty, or he IS guilty are not being honest.
And in regards credibility of statements, again its personal view, but you need to take whats available and see what you think. If a convicted sex abuser was accused of another sex act, would you assume guilty or not guilty. The majority would weigh up the likelyhood and assume its probably true.
And balance of probability would likely make it so. But its not certain until its proven, or disproven.
Soldato
I agree with everything you've wrote.
The post you replied to was me replying to jibber who as made up his mind already (or he doesn't care).
I think waiting for due process to take place is the right position. I am of the same opinion of you, that its very likely at some point he might have crossed the line. He might not even realise it himself because of his own abuse experiences were boundaries were crossed. This is why at some point we need a proper investigation with an official outcome.
This. I mean, it's obvious he's been massive sex pest/pervert ever since he arrived in the public view/domain. As you say, it really isn't hard to believe that he's taken that sort of behaviour way too far on occasion.
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 1,475
No. I started replying to this thread as a fan on his side and wanting to see the best in him. The more I've read about him, some of it from his own revelations I've realised he's a narcissistic sociopath with no human empathy who would be capable of the most evil things to boost his ego. He's pretty much admitted on air to most of the things he's been accused of.
I won't go into the women's revelations (which are solid evidence), instead look at what he said about his childhood. In his biography he admitted his step father banned his dog from going up the stairs. So he would call the dog to come up the stairs, when it did as he said he called it a 'bad dog' and kicked it all the way down the stairs. He would then walk down the stairs and cuddle the dog to mess with it's sense of reality. That's from Brand himself. He laughed about the dog believing the Russell upstairs was the good twin and the Russell downstairs was the bad twin.
An animal abuser is a classic trait of serial killer
I’ve made up my mind Brand is a sorry excuse of a human being. He’s definitely manipulative and predatory.
Have you ever had a one night stand?
Soldato
Care to share some tweets to back that up? Lets read some of these replies and see how rational they sound.
Last edited:
Soldato
Jesus Christ he seriously wrote that? That is some proper ****** up psychopathic behaviour. Why would he admit that unless he doesn't understand how a normal person would view it.
Afterwards he wrote, which you chose to omit
He's also literally a vegan lol
Russell Brand Hasn't Eaten Meat Since He Was 14
In a Q+A session on his "Recovery Live" tour, comedian Russell Brand explains why he first went vegetarian and why he now follows a vegan diet.
www.livekindly.com
Soldato
Afterwards he wrote, which you chose to omit
He's also literally a vegan lol
Russell Brand Hasn't Eaten Meat Since He Was 14
In a Q+A session on his "Recovery Live" tour, comedian Russell Brand explains why he first went vegetarian and why he now follows a vegan diet.
Sounds like he adapted and realised his psychopathic behaviour needed to be supressed. What he did was with that dog is just not normal on any level. He is talking about having different personalities. He is tormenting it and getting enjoyment from not just hurting it but playing with its emotions.
An ex is a child psychologist up in Manchester, she used to tell me about some of the stuff kids she treated did (obviously no names) and she had some that hurt animals and lets just say she didn't think they were healthy members of society.
He's talking about what he did as a seven year old child once, which he regrets, and you're attempting to turn in to Freud and act like he's a closet serial killer. I'd imagine if we went through any of our childhoods you might find a time we did something naughty, there isn't a pattern of animal abuse from him though; distinctly the opposite actually given he's a committed vegan.
or dated 16 year olds/ invited them round ?...
maybe brand's solicitor has categorically told him to shut up - but wouldn't he be trying to plead his case if he thought his behaviour was so moral - doubt he would accept an interview with Emily Maitles.
We'll have to see if his wife stands by him, too - litmus test.