Russell Brand.

Demon said:
I follow the logic they are applying, but it's just unprecedented isn't it?

But a good point that I may have conflated the committee letter intention.. A good point that this might be more in RB's favour, not that any side should be favoured, but if allegations are made in the media, he has some rights to refute them publicly as well until things progress to him being charged etc.

I've just never seen this happen before, but actually if this was a move to thwart trial by media grossly against RB, then perhaps it's warranted.. the truth needs to come out, but in a court..
Click to expand...

The way I see it - it's symptomatic of a broken system, and it feels like it's now become wired back to front.

In a working system, the victims would have gone to the police - the police wouldn't have named any names and simply performed their investigation, then the CPS would decide whether they have enough to secure a conviction or not. They're then named - as it goes into the court system, and the court system is a matter of public record, (for the most part)

Instead we have victims legging it to the media first - the media legally (from the standpoint that it's a story) turn the dial around to 11, and have pictures of the accused all over their papers with what are at that time unsubstantiated opinions.

(One reason they might do this, is because the police aren't taking them seriously, and they feel like they need to create a media storm first, to get their attention)

Once the media storm is in full frenzy, the police come in after the fact and have to ask the victims to speak to them. By this point the damage to the accused AND the victim is done, it's done because the accused won't get a fair trial. If the accused doesn't get a fair trial or can't go on trial at all - the victims won't get justice.


On a side note, I do find it a bit weird how the government is writing to social media companies to have his stuff demonetised, whilst at the same time telling publishers they might be breaking the law for publishing a story about this person, feels a bit like they're trying to have their cake and eat it.

I don't see why or how, it's the government's business whether or how he makes money or not - if the allegations are well founded he should be prosecuted and tried, if they're not - leave him alone, it feels a bit odd how they're trying to kill his online presence, rather than just prosecuting him - and letting the nature of that just play out.

I'm no fan of Russell Brand at all, I think he's an idiot, but I want the world to be as fair as it can be
 
Last edited:
Screeeech said:
The way I see it - it's symptomatic of a broken system, and it feels like it's now become wired back to front.

In a working system, the victims would have gone to the police - the police wouldn't have named any names and simply performed their investigation, then the CPS would decide whether they have enough to secure a conviction or not. They're then named - as it goes into the court system, and the court system is a matter of public record, (for the most part)

Instead we have victims legging it to the media first - the media legally (from the standpoint that it's a story) turn the dial around to 11, and have pictures of the accused all over their papers with what are at that time unsubstantiated opinions.

(One reason they might do this, is because the police aren't taking them seriously, and they feel like they need to create a media storm first, to get their attention)

Once the media storm is in full frenzy, the police come in after the fact and have to ask the victims to speak to them. By this point the damage to the accused AND the victim is done, it's done because the accused won't get a fair trial. If the accused doesn't get a fair trial or can't go on trial at all - the victims won't get justice.


On a side note, I do find it a bit weird how the government is writing to social media companies to have his stuff demonetised, whilst at the same time telling publishers they might be breaking the law for publishing a story about this person, feels a bit like they're trying to have their cake and eat it.

I don't see why or how, it's the government's business whether or how he makes money or not - if the allegations are well founded he should be prosecuted and tried, if they're not - leave him alone, it feels a bit odd how they're trying to kill his online presence, rather than just prosecuting him - and letting the nature of that just play out.

I'm no fan of Russell Brand at all, I think he's an idiot, but I want the world to be as fair as it can be
Click to expand...

The counter point would be that without the media/social media and MeToo, Weinstein and Saville would have gone on without anyone knowing. It's a bit chilling if you think about it. I genuinely believe the journalists involved in this think they're onto something with Brand that they have unmasked a prolific offender and more women will feel enboldened to come out to the police or papers. And more women have come out, so they at least look partly right.
 
ANDREW GREEN said:
The counter point would be that without the media/social media and MeToo, Weinstein and Saville would have gone on without anyone knowing. It's a bit chilling if you think about it. I genuinely believe the journalists involved in this think they're onto something with Brand that they have unmasked a prolific offender and more women will feel enboldened to come out to the police or papers. And more women have come out, so they at least look partly right.
Click to expand...
It's hardly 'unmasking' when they all know who the wronguns are but even if they actually genuinely want to expose someone it's still near enough impossible to get it to stick.

Sadly the only solution available then is a public lashing regardless of the 'official' outcome.
 
StriderX said:
It's hardly 'unmasking' when they all know who the wronguns are but even if they actually genuinely want to expose someone it's still near enough impossible to get it to stick.

Sadly the only solution available then is a public lashing regardless of the 'official' outcome.
Click to expand...

While some said they knew, I didn't know about Brand or Saville until this was reported. It's possible some victims feel it will be their word alone against a mega celebrity with the best lawyers in the land against them smeering them and they don't stand a chance. When a plethora of women accuse the same person the burden of proof becomes stronger and victims feel more confident to speak out.

It should also be noted that both Saville and Brand have had threatening letters sent from lawyers after people discussed their reported sex crimes.
 
ANDREW GREEN said:
The counter point would be that without the media/social media and MeToo, Weinstein and Saville would have gone on without anyone knowing. It's a bit chilling if you think about it. I genuinely believe the journalists involved in this think they're onto something with Brand that they have unmasked a prolific offender and more women will feel enboldened to come out to the police or papers
Click to expand...

Thing is, that feeds into the general point I was making with regard to the system being broken.

If we're having to resort to a press and social media meltdown in order to get a criminal before the courts, I wouldn't be too confident of getting a fair and accurate result, for the victims or the accused.
 
Last edited:
Screeeech said:
Thing is, that feeds into the general point I was making with regard to the system being broken.

If we're having to resort to a press and social media meltdown in order to get a criminal before the courts, I wouldn't be too confident of getting a fair and accurate result, for the victims or the accused.
Click to expand...
Well, with the talk of televising trials, I'm sure it won't be long before we can watch along and vote on who we think is guilty. Maybe with a celebrity panel of judges.
 
Getting hard who to believe with this stuff now. Celebrities getting plastered all over the media and then then cases get dropped or someone made the whole thing up out of spite (and gets away with it). Like the guy who voiced Rick and Morty ...Fired from his own show before an investigation even started, charges dropped, fired anyway because turns out he is a bit weird (but it wasn't an issue for the past 10 years when he was making them all lots of money).

It's like all it takes is a women to accuse a man of something sexual over social media, the media blow it up and it immediately destroys their career.
 
Last edited:
I can't help but think he's using the chance to capitalise knowing that those that feel for his struggle, will now send in money which they would not have before. It's grift 101, typical of the right wing sort all over the west really.
 
Screeeech said:
Thing is, that feeds into the general point I was making with regard to the system being broken.

If we're having to resort to a press and social media meltdown in order to get a criminal before the courts, I wouldn't be too confident of getting a fair and accurate result, for the victims or the accused.
Click to expand...

A family member of mine has been through the 'system'. And the ******* had a history with the police and abusing women. Nothing came of it, you have more luck of finding a rainbow with a pot of gold at the end of it.


BowdonUK said:
I'm abit suspicious that at least the Rumble aspect is shady.

Rumble is being portrayed like it's some little company yet it's backers are unusual.

One of the main backers of Rumble is Dan Bongino, a guy who as served in the US secret service for 10 years+. Is a special agent ever retired?

Then the other two big backers are BlackRock, and Vanguard.

en.m.wikipedia.org

BlackRock - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org

The Vanguard Group - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org

They are two of the richest companies in the US, maybe the world. Combined they might be bigger than Alphabet, the parent company of Google.
Click to expand...

He's been on the telly for 20 years, has 6 million subs on youtube and is backed by Peter Thiel, yet somehow people are saying he isn't the 'mainstream'.
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
The man is a millionaire. Talk about grift :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Man does exactly the same as every other 'independent news' outlet, muppets talk about grift :rolleyes:

fizzelopeguss said:
He's been on the telly for 20 years, has 6 million subs on youtube and is backed by Peter Thiel, yet somehow people are saying he isn't the 'mainstream'.
Click to expand...
Yes? you know mainstream essentially means legacy media right? Pretty much every single media channel that started online isn't classed as 'mainstream' from Brand all the way to The Young Turks on the other side of the political spectrum, they're all either backed by wealthy men/political super pacs and every single one has some sort of subscription model/donation page etc.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom