Russell Brand.

He's already gonna lose everything viia trial by media and character assassination.
Time will tell if he loses his liberty and financial worth too.

I'm sure he'll be found guilty for something because we live in 2023 and he's a bit of a character that probably needs reeducation. Regardless of what really happened.

If he did do it then I'm also not surprised and hope justice is served
 
Efour said:
He's already gonna lose everything viia trial by media and character assassination.
Time will tell if he loses his liberty and financial worth too.

I'm sure he'll be found guilty for something because we live in 2023 and he's a bit of a character that probably needs reeducation. Regardless of what really happened.

If he did do it then I'm also not surprised and hope justice is served
Click to expand...

Good riddance to trash I say
 
The pitchfork mobs on Social Media are very quiet at the moment, with not one single shout of 'Cancel Him' being heard?
 
Fascinating really. I see some finding C4 “guilty“ already despite saying there was no crime in the first place? Surely both sides have to be guilty? Have I got that wrong and it’s just very early?
 
I don't need to caveat this with his former addictions and reputation but here it is.

I found the programme strange... I kept waiting for the big thing, the 'gotcha' and it didn't seem to come.

"Russell asked me to work with him" (uh oh) "and it went really well for ages".... ok

"Russell and I were really close, to the point where execs asked me to deliver bad news... we grew closer over time... now I feel like he groomed me"

"I was in a consentual relationship with Russell and he went OTT in the bedroom but stopped" all this interspersed with footage of his stand up gig stating what he's like.

Guy's got a rep, surely no one could argue they didn't know what they were entering into? Like the audience members who went willingly to his hotel and complained that he didn't call them afterwards. Have people forgotten about the 'groupie' thing, men & women have willingly engaged in casual sexual encounters for much longer than I've been alive. They made themselves 'disposable'.

Again, if you've consentually slept with him several times and you get a booty call at 3am surely it can't be that surprising that the recovering sex addict wants sex? If it's a problem you don't get in the car or even answer the text. That was the only bit I seriously took issue with, no means no, no matter what. That's where he failed and she shouldn't have gone round there in the first place.

Definitely some unsavoury behaviour and some unpleasant experiences for a couple. He now does work for women's charities. He recognised and corrected his language on question time so it looks like he's trying to be a better person.

He was a good looking guy with a never ending buffet, he took full advantage of that. Is that enough reason to 'cancel' him?

I don't know, it's not the bombshell programme I was expecting. Certainly wasn't a Cosby and it seems odd they spent an hour and half with what they had... unsubstantiated allegations. Quite filmsy overall. I was expecting some horrific tales of a dark monster behind closed doors... I didn't get that from what we saw.

(just doing some other reading... the 16 year old thing was weird, technically not illegal but still. I think we should have laws in place that makes it a crime to sleep with a 16 year old if you're over 18 for example.)

Further edit: I always thought he was a ****, there was a brief window after the politics thing and before his current thing where he was ok for five minutes ;) )
 
Last edited:
I wanna say him and Noel Fielding on nine out of ten cats or some other bizarre comedy show was funny.

When he was really living up to his Dickensian bohemian character out of time 90s? 00s? Maybe I can't remember... it was moderately amusing. But that was when all this alleged is going on.
 
Last edited:
Did any of his accusers, at any point in all of this, go to the police?

No? Not a single one?

I must admit, I didn't waste my time watching the programme so it's as much a serious question as a rhetorical one but I have serious doubts about people, who having been the victim of a serious crime, first thought is to go to a journalist.

(Just to add, I don't know Brand, I don't watch him and don't particulary care about him either way)
 
Intimidated
Could lose job
Fear of not being believed
Don’t want to bring the family into it

Then there is

Journalist went to them
Others reported to journalists

Plenty of recent cases to show where all the above are plausible, particularly involving “TV personalities”.

But like I said previously, allegations have been made if untrue he should be cease and desisting or suing “right away” and not just putting out a youtube video.

Edit - did I really have to explain that?
 
Last edited:
dlockers said:
Is there a thread defending the BP CEO somewhere?
Click to expand...

Does he have a YouTube channel catering to CT nut white men with a persecution complex because they believe alpha white men are being marginalised by feminist wokeism?

If the answer is no, you have your answer.
 
Last edited:
esmozz said:
Okay, Okay fair enough.

Lets just skip to the chase - he should be dissolved in acid live on TV. Since somebody said he did it, he must have done it. Good enough for me.
Click to expand...

Fine if you said you were reserving judgement, but you said the accusers were making it up in your opinion. So here we are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom