I hadn't considered that they could phrase the question that way to get the answer they want.
Russell Brand.
- Thread starter Von Smallhausen
- Start date
Except for those that literally have, you mean?
Watching the news on this (you can hardly miss it) with increasing incredulity. Its appears his accusers are freely speaking in rounds of interviews with journalists but nobody has yet gone to the police.
Its still early days in the story and I can hope that at some point the police will be involved because if this whole thing plays out without any police involvement.......well, I will be speechless.
He's being accused of rape - its demonstrably possible to prosecute these crimes years after they occur.
Its still early days in the story and I can hope that at some point the police will be involved because if this whole thing plays out without any police involvement.......well, I will be speechless.
He's being accused of rape - its demonstrably possible to prosecute these crimes years after they occur.
To echo some of the points here...
He had a 'brand' and hung his career off it. No woman could claim they didn't know what he was about, I can see that he was probably seen as a pest in the industry as he would most likely proposition anyone with a pulse.
I saw a video (probably in this thread) where he was in an aussie radio station giving an interview and they literally got their prettiest, most elligible young woman and they basically queued up to give him their numbers.
Part of his patter was his 'playful banter' which seems to have worked a lot of the time. A lot 'no's' that were really yes's or at least not a firm no.
Women are confusing, when I was younger I getting cuddly and intimate with a girl and tried to kiss her. She shoved me away and wrestled her way ontop, only to pin me down and kiss me. If no really means no then all parties have to stick to the rule.
I bring this up in reference to his assistant who had to 'really scream' at him to stop... which he did when he realised it was no longer a game. Not to excuse it, but to offer some insight. They had been together physically before I seem to remember, he probably wasn't expecting genuine resistance.
I'm really not a fan of this witchhunt thing we've developed with the sinister music playing over the accounts of anonymous accusers. What's really going on with all that?
He was with a young woman... he didn't rape her or stop her from doing anything, he coached her on how to get out the house at 11pm and made her take a bath. He went a bit OTT during a blowjob once. I don't think this falls under the definition of 'grooming' or 'rape' AFAIK. He walked up to a girl on the street, pulled a dress out of her bag (which she had already selected for herself and purchased) and said 'you're wearing this on our date', she put on makeup as I'm sure a lot of 16 year olds would, I don't think that's grooming, I could be wrong.
Previous partner, long time friend who 'didn't like it' when he was with other women and kept a load of senitmental items had to firmly tell him to stop, which he did.
Previous partner gets a message at 3am asking her to go round.... to make a cake? She then changed her mind or was annoyed he didn't use protection.
Show runner, when requested gave contact information to women who were typically 18-20 to meet with 'a TV star' for casual sex. Some of these women then felt used and somehow found the number of the show runner to voice their displeasure?
I can see he was probably a bit of a pest, along with 'that's Russell' but I get the impression that if anyone had turned around and said back the **** off Russell, I'm not interested/married etc. he's not going to waste his time because he had them lining up wherever he went.
In my line of work I lead with two questions: Why this? Why now? and they're applicable here.
He wasn't some sadist who kept slaves, he didn't drug and r*** people, he was never violent, he never forced himself on someone that wasn't initially receptive, these were all women who had previously had sexual encounters and went back for more. Is it just we live in this weird culture where we have to judge people and take them down for things we don't agree with regardless of their legality?
Women slept with a self-styled lethario with narciscistic tendencies, women have been choosing to sleep with men for many reasons since time began.
If there was a law against being an annoying pr*** then lock him up. Leave everything else to the courts and then report on it, anonymous accusers being given the power to ruin people before proven guilty is not a good thing.
He had a 'brand' and hung his career off it. No woman could claim they didn't know what he was about, I can see that he was probably seen as a pest in the industry as he would most likely proposition anyone with a pulse.
I saw a video (probably in this thread) where he was in an aussie radio station giving an interview and they literally got their prettiest, most elligible young woman and they basically queued up to give him their numbers.
Part of his patter was his 'playful banter' which seems to have worked a lot of the time. A lot 'no's' that were really yes's or at least not a firm no.
Women are confusing, when I was younger I getting cuddly and intimate with a girl and tried to kiss her. She shoved me away and wrestled her way ontop, only to pin me down and kiss me. If no really means no then all parties have to stick to the rule.
I bring this up in reference to his assistant who had to 'really scream' at him to stop... which he did when he realised it was no longer a game. Not to excuse it, but to offer some insight. They had been together physically before I seem to remember, he probably wasn't expecting genuine resistance.
I'm really not a fan of this witchhunt thing we've developed with the sinister music playing over the accounts of anonymous accusers. What's really going on with all that?
He was with a young woman... he didn't rape her or stop her from doing anything, he coached her on how to get out the house at 11pm and made her take a bath. He went a bit OTT during a blowjob once. I don't think this falls under the definition of 'grooming' or 'rape' AFAIK. He walked up to a girl on the street, pulled a dress out of her bag (which she had already selected for herself and purchased) and said 'you're wearing this on our date', she put on makeup as I'm sure a lot of 16 year olds would, I don't think that's grooming, I could be wrong.
Previous partner, long time friend who 'didn't like it' when he was with other women and kept a load of senitmental items had to firmly tell him to stop, which he did.
Previous partner gets a message at 3am asking her to go round.... to make a cake? She then changed her mind or was annoyed he didn't use protection.
Show runner, when requested gave contact information to women who were typically 18-20 to meet with 'a TV star' for casual sex. Some of these women then felt used and somehow found the number of the show runner to voice their displeasure?
I can see he was probably a bit of a pest, along with 'that's Russell' but I get the impression that if anyone had turned around and said back the **** off Russell, I'm not interested/married etc. he's not going to waste his time because he had them lining up wherever he went.
In my line of work I lead with two questions: Why this? Why now? and they're applicable here.
He wasn't some sadist who kept slaves, he didn't drug and r*** people, he was never violent, he never forced himself on someone that wasn't initially receptive, these were all women who had previously had sexual encounters and went back for more. Is it just we live in this weird culture where we have to judge people and take them down for things we don't agree with regardless of their legality?
Women slept with a self-styled lethario with narciscistic tendencies, women have been choosing to sleep with men for many reasons since time began.
If there was a law against being an annoying pr*** then lock him up. Leave everything else to the courts and then report on it, anonymous accusers being given the power to ruin people before proven guilty is not a good thing.
That’s what I’d echo. The law surrounding anonymous accusations needs to be changed IMO.
If the media circus surrounding this proves anything it’s that as they’ve literally tried to destroy someone’s life, reputation and career based on unproven accusations from anonymous individuals. How this is seen as fair in the eyes of the law I have no idea.
I’m going to write to my MP regarding the matter! Suggest others do the same if they agree.
Last edited:
Talking about MPs. I have no idea WTF MPs are doing offering their opinion and advising what should happen next in this. They need to stay in their lane.
Before anyone says "reporters are asking them the question so what do you expect" - MPs seem very good at avoiding questions they dont want to answer within a political context so why cant they avoid this one?
Pressure being applied to get him banned on YouTube / Rumble and his tour cancelled by most media outlets. There's no court case, they haven't even reported anything to the police and the only evidence they have is a text which might be out of context.
No fan of Russell Brand and I generally find him very annoying, but I'm not a fan of cancel culture and not giving people a chance to defend themselves.
No fan of Russell Brand and I generally find him very annoying, but I'm not a fan of cancel culture and not giving people a chance to defend themselves.
Last edited:
I thought Cancel Culture had died a death about 12-18 months ago but now I see it was just hibernating and growing and has recently come back even more rabid and hungry for victims than ever before
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
The rape accusations are a he said, she said, even for the girl who reported it and went to a rape clinic. Given that 99.95 of accusations don't end up in a conviction I 'll be amazed if it happens here.
That doesn't mean people can't think the guy is a creep for having a sexual relationship with a 16 year old. We aren't a jury, we can't take away his liberty. The court of public opinion has always been a thing and it always will be.
And that's why it shouldn't be allowed to happen. Media should only be allowed to report on these things after the hearing and a verdict reached.
What they've done is immensely powerful with no duty or care towards the truth or the rammifications of lies or embelished accounts. That's not the media's job, it's the courts.
The damage was done the moment they 'went to press'. That's it now, guilty or not, that's the association people will carry with them for the rest of their (and Russell's) lives.
There should be accountability for that kind of power.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
You want to limit what the press can do? Would you apply that to all possible crimes? Corruption etc as those accusations can also follow you for life as well.
Obviously the press have to have credible evidence or they are going to get taken to the cleaners in court. This isn't the Sun, I don't think the Times would be printing this unless they believed these women were credible.
There was a HUGE outrage over Caroline Flack when she killed herself due to social media and press reporting on a prosecution that was going ahead for her domestically abusing her partner and she had actually been charged with a crime. Everyone was appalled and it spurred the whole #BeKind movement - the premise of which is to stop judging people so quickly and harshly.... Oh how we forget so quickly just so ghouls can get their piece of salacious gossip.
Associate
- Joined
- 9 May 2022
- Posts
- 1,912
- Location
- London
Bonkers how the overwhelming majority of people who have one night stands manage to not get accused of rape then…
Last edited:
Do any other crimes genuinely harm a persons future more than simply an accusation of a sexual crime once its hit the media?
So, yes, I would limit what the press can do when no police report has been made, let alone a charge or the allegations tested in court. I would do this for all crimes TBH.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
Shock horror society forgets when the next salacious story comes along. This is what humans are like, you are never going to stop it, its in our culture, gossip mags sell in their millions, the tabloids base their business on such stories and making their readership angry with political stories that either aren't true or are twisted to suit a narrative. Some of the characters who went after Flack are still working in the industry and will jump on the next story.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
Yeah I've had a fair few and no rape accusations, though a few might have called me an ****hole when I didn't call.
The press don't know the truth. They have looked around for anyone with a complaint against Brand. They got these 4 women who have remained anonymous, so no accountability, and ran with the story.
At the moment there is no difference in how the media are covering this story from Cliff Richards, Harvey Procter, and Paul Gambaccini.
There needs to be restrictions in cases like this if they can't act responsibility.
On the flip side it still amazes me that Boy George hasn't been cancelled, still has his social media accounts, still has a career as a DJ and occasional singer and still appears on TV such as I'm a Celebrity 2022... and he was found guilty of handcuffing a male escort to a wall, whipping him and threatening him with sex toys. He was sentenced to 15 months in prison for it. Then carries on as if nothing changed.
Brand could be guilty. But so far he is nearly cancelled on simple accusations. Why the difference?
Brand could be guilty. But so far he is nearly cancelled on simple accusations. Why the difference?
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2004
- Posts
- 17,074
- Location
- Shepley
I see someone on a flimsy talk show who's supposed to be having a great time so tries to play along but is visibly uncomfortable with the situation. He grabs her by both wrists, forcing one behind her back meaning her only way out is to move closer to him. She sits on his knee to play along; he forces her on to his lap and grabs her hips. She gets up and literally keeps him at arm's length.
Regarding this behaviour as a bit of a laugh is the root of the problem. Savile was exactly the same, forcing himself on people in plain sight of the cameras and audience, but people ignored it because "that's just how he is". Not saying Brand is on Savile's level FWIW.