Russell Brand.

This is the weird thing. I can't stand Brand so haven't really watched much of his stuff. But I always thought he was a raving leftie. Is that not the case? Has he always been right wing, did he start left and moved to the right or is he still left wing but believes in some things that people associate with the right?

He was, I'm not sure his politics changed much, I 've not followed him to actually know but he went fully down the rabbit hole on the conspiracy stuff and was adopted by a % of the right wing that love that stuff. I'm not sure if he fully believes it or simply followed the money.
 
I think youtube servers can put brands monies into escrow in the interim, and later refund him, or perpetually divert the monies into appropriate victim causes,
leaving character evidence for others to view online and form an opinion doesn't seem unreasonable too, jury needs to be informed.
 

This is quite an interesting interview with a Andrew Sachs grand daughter who had a relationship with him for a while, she basically says that she thinks people should believe victims, but also concedes that Russell was always lovely to her and actually paid for her rehab and made a sincere apology about what happened on the radio back in 2018.
 
Would you therefore claim I hadn’t actually done it and defend me against any repercussions society wise, such as if other posters wanted to stop being my friend, until the courts gave you permission to have an opinion?

If I had been a first hand witness (in the crowd of everyone, or Roar) I would not defend you and would shout at others that you are a bad man and are violent towards incels.

If however, I had only heard from one witness about what had happened, and maybe another that didn't see the whole thing but thinks they know what happened, then yes, I would defend against any repercussions coming your way as the events have not been tested in a way to be ascertained as a true version of events beyond doubt. Up until that point it is possible that you were innocent and another version of events could be proven true after examination of evidence. However, if the evidence presented did show you did it, I would also not be your friend.

Jimmy Saville never had a trial, the slander against him should not stand, the man was a saint and never did a thing wrong.

He was never punished either, unfortunately.
 

This is quite an interesting interview with a Andrew Sachs grand daughter who had a relationship with him for a while, she basically says that she thinks people should believe victims, but also concedes that Russell was always lovely to her and actually paid for her rehab and made a sincere apology about what happened on the radio back in 2018.

Not watched, may do but I'm not actually overly interested in the man like many others. However, some may say all the charity work and reconciliation attempts could be a sign of guilt for all the crap he did.
 
Yeah, more people just need to get raped in back alleys directly in view of a CCTV camera /s

Remember folks, you're also partly to blame if you're willing to enter a man's house or have previously given consent. One of the classics from a few days ago.

This a stupid comment and you're looking at this entirely from one side.

People in this thread are basically saying that consent has to be given each and every time in clear (and preferably in writing) and are able to whisk it out decades later to possibly exonerate themselves?

So a woman is leaving herself open to a sexual assault accusation if she "woke me up"? Or vice versa or any direction for that matter?!

And no it's not victim blaming, but personal responsibility comes to play and credibility if after someone was an arse hole you go back to their place multiple under zero duress? Like really?

I pick up a girl we have a good time but a couple times into it she feels cheap by being with me (I believe this was the reference one of the accusers used) and instead of calling me out on it...continues to see me and 20 years later makes an allegation that is almost impossible to prove and which would ruin my name?

These matters cheapens the real deal, it cheapens the real and awful cases where a person is attacked by someone she knew (most common I believe) but trusted, someone attacked in an alleyway, somewhere their autonomy was taken from them.
 
Not watched, may do but I'm not actually overly interested in the man like many others. However, some may say all the charity work and reconciliation attempts could be a sign of guilt for all the crap he did.

It was more the fact that she seems like a pretty good character witness considering she's very pro-victim, yet had to concede she couldn't imagine Russell doing what he's been accused of.
 
This a stupid comment and you're looking at this entirely from one side.

People in this thread are basically saying that consent has to be given each and every time in clear (and preferably in writing) and are able to whisk it out decades later to possibly exonerate themselves?

So a woman is leaving herself open to a sexual assault accusation if she "woke me up"? Or vice versa or any direction for that matter?!

And no it's not victim blaming, but personal responsibility comes to play and credibility if after someone was an arse hole you go back to their place multiple under zero duress? Like really?

I pick up a girl we have a good time but a couple times into it she feels cheap by being with me (I believe this was the reference one of the accusers used) and instead of calling me out on it...continues to see me and 20 years later makes an allegation that is almost impossible to prove and which would ruin my name?

These matters cheapens the real deal, it cheapens the real and awful cases where a person is attacked by someone she knew (most common I believe) but trusted, someone attacked in an alleyway, somewhere their autonomy was taken from them.
I had an 'incident' happen to me a while back. I am not going to make a big deal about it, my decision, but if the person in question gets put into the lime light I'll be coming forward.
 

This is quite an interesting interview with a Andrew Sachs grand daughter who had a relationship with him for a while, she basically says that she thinks people should believe victims, but also concedes that Russell was always lovely to her and actually paid for her rehab and made a sincere apology about what happened on the radio back in 2018.
people should believe victims. Accusers are not necessarily victims.
 
It was more the fact that she seems like a pretty good character witness considering she's very pro-victim, yet had to concede she couldn't imagine Russell doing what he's been accused of.

I did give it a watch. I see your point, but stand by mine. It sounds like she had good experience with him, but without knowing the facts and details of the relations he had with the others it doesn't mean much really. Maybe she was the one he did right by for whatever reason, and treated the rest like trash - we just do not know. It's all speculation.
 
What actions should be taken on the back of rumours and unfounded accusations? Death? Castration? What?
Much like the bakery you guys presumably love, it's for private businesses to do what they want. That's all that has happened. Do you want to live in a communist state or something?
 
  • Like
Reactions: JRS
I know it's all getting a bit heated, so we should all take a moment to reflect that sometimes there are ridiculous accusations, a big pile on and then the adjudicating body find in favour of the accused party. Things tend to go pretty quiet after that although there are always some who just won't accept the adjudication regardless, there is no helping them.

 
Last edited:
Well, Russell says he's innocent, some women claim he's done something. Why are you refusing to believe him but choosing to believe them? Is it impossible to make detailed false allegations?

Most reasonable people are simply saying take the case to the Police so it can be dealt with correctly rather than trial by media.

Hang on you're being all reasonable now in this post but previously in this thread you've talking like they are all lying and this is a conspiracy to hurt him for (insert today's reason) So now you haven't made a judgement that he didn't do it and that these women might be telling the truth?
 
Much like the bakery you guys presumably love, it's for private businesses to do what they want. That's all that has happened. Do you want to live in a communist state or something?

I think much like a Communist state we're sending someone to the metaphorical Gulag for crimes that are actually their political views. The BBC and Channel 4 aren't private companies, they are both funded by the state.
 
Back
Top Bottom