Russell Brand: BBC and Channel 4 investigate allegations

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, JonnyF said:

If concerns over his behaviour were not based on morals, what were they based on?

Legal jeopardy is perhaps one example.

 

Anyway, why not just admit you inserted ‘morals’ without any basis in my comment you were referring to.

 

Just admit you were wrong, it won’t hurt.

 

[PingRoundTheWorld]

I'm not fan of Russell Brand - I've always thought he was a pompous *** - but that doesn't make him a sex offender. This trend of cancelling anyone who's sexually aggressive without any proof that they actually broke the law is appaling, not to mention has negative repercussions on the rest of society by increasing the likelihood of false rape allegations being file overall.

 

If we look at the facts, all 4 of his accusers admit to having an ongoing consensual relationship with him at the time of the so-called "rape". In other words it's all exes he dumed. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

 

The 16 year old - the relationship was ongoing and consensual. Too young? age of consent is 16 in the UK. Not rape. No laws broken.

The LA "businesswoman" - admitted to having a sexual relationship with him before the incident. She obviously got upset and jealous that he tried to initiate a threesome. I remember one time when an ex caught me making out with her friend (we were all in the same bed) - how did she respond? crying for a while, then when the friend fell asleep she proceeded to aggressively give me a bj and **** me without a condom. My money would be that this is exactly what happened here, except in this case he probably kicked her out afterwards which made her flip out.

The employee - also admitted to having a sexual relationship before the incident. Probably got upset or jealous about something and he tried to initiate sex anyway, and got angry when she refused. Would've been an issue if he actually forced her to have sex - but he didn't and she left the house. Attempting to have sex with someone you're in a relationship with is not a crime.

The ex-girlfriend - by definition not rape, nor is she claiming they had sex - just that he was mentally abusive. Again no law broken.

Sexual assault in Soho - vague on the details there, probably just a made up story.

 

As far as his other disgusting behavior - again, disgusting, not illegal. Cancel him if his audience thinks he's not worth listening to - not because the PC brigade got a target on his back.

[Chomper Higgot]

6 minutes ago, PingRoundTheWorld said:

I'm not fan of Russell Brand - I've always thought he was a pompous *** - but that doesn't make him a sex offender. This trend of cancelling anyone who's sexually aggressive without any proof that they actually broke the law is appaling, not to mention has negative repercussions on the rest of society by increasing the likelihood of false rape allegations being file overall.

 

If we look at the facts, all 4 of his accusers admit to having an ongoing consensual relationship with him at the time of the so-called "rape". In other words it's all exes he dumed. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

 

The 16 year old - the relationship was ongoing and consensual. Too young? age of consent is 16 in the UK. Not rape. No laws broken.

The LA "businesswoman" - admitted to having a sexual relationship with him before the incident. She obviously got upset and jealous that he tried to initiate a threesome. I remember one time when an ex caught me making out with her friend (we were all in the same bed) - how did she respond? crying for a while, then when the friend fell asleep she proceeded to aggressively give me a bj and **** me without a condom. My money would be that this is exactly what happened here, except in this case he probably kicked her out afterwards which made her flip out.

The employee - also admitted to having a sexual relationship before the incident. Probably got upset or jealous about something and he tried to initiate sex anyway, and got angry when she refused. Would've been an issue if he actually forced her to have sex - but he didn't and she left the house. Attempting to have sex with someone you're in a relationship with is not a crime.

The ex-girlfriend - by definition not rape, nor is she claiming they had sex - just that he was mentally abusive. Again no law broken.

Sexual assault in Soho - vague on the details there, probably just a made up story.

 

As far as his other disgusting behavior - again, disgusting, not illegal. Cancel him if his audience thinks he's not worth listening to - not because the PC brigade got a target on his back.

Who cancelled Brand?

[transam]

14 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Do I need to pull out examples from this single tread to convince you people are taking part one side or the other? Cmon please you make me laugh out loud. I thought you where better than so, or just want to play games? 

What you wrote is plain to see, you're doing exactly what you are trying to defend against...????

Now, come on chap..... ????

[Hummin]

6 minutes ago, transam said:

What you wrote is plain to see, you're doing exactly what you are trying to defend against...????

Now, come on chap..... ????

I do not need to play your endless game ???? Go and play with someone else Mr twister ????

[transam]

Just now, Hummin said:

I do not need to play your endless game ???? Go and play with someone else Mr twister ????

Oh, well, never mind.................

 

You can stand down now.......????

[Hummin]

1 minute ago, transam said:

Oh, well, never mind.................

 

You can stand down now.......????

At least be a man! Hiding behind confused emotions for every posters who do not agree with you, is kind of childish, lame or used cowardly. Weak men give confused emotions. 

 

Have a nice day

[transam]

Just now, Hummin said:

At least be a man! Hiding behind confused emotions for every posters who do not agree with you, is kind of childish, lame or used cowardly. Weak men give confused emotions. 

 

Have a nice day

That post is as silly as the one I pulled you on............????

 

Grow up, chap.............????

[JonnyF]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Who cancelled Brand?

YouTube for starters.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-66851698

 

 

Deplatforming him and taking away his living before he's even been before a judge/jury.

 

Cancel culture at it's finest. Once again by lefty bekind tech billionaires. You must be loving this.????

[CharlieKo]

In a rational world you are innocent until proven guilty. regardless of accusations! Now you are guilty until proven innocent. What a sad society will live in.

[RichardColeman]

21 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

Then  again , had social media been around 30 years ago, Jimmy Saville wouldn't have gotton away with his crimes 

Not saying he was innocent, but it is very easy to convict a dead man of crimes when he is dead ! 

 

'Sex crimes' should have a limit on them, not 20-40 years after. If I was on a jury I would have a hard time believing anybody of being 'raped' 20 years after the event, especially if the perp was dead.

[Andycoops]

The press are reporting this idiot is a comedian, I fail to see anything he's ever done as being remotely funny.

He's a complete and utter talentless moron who got lucky.

Not so lucky now though...

[Nick Carter icp]

13 minutes ago, RichardColeman said:

Not saying he was innocent, but it is very easy to convict a dead man of crimes when he is dead ! 

 

Its not easy at all, its actually impossible , you cannot convict a dead person because a dead person cannot stand trial 

[RayC]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

He may be a <deleted> but that doesn't mean he did what he's accused of.

Which is why I used the word 'allegations'.

 

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

Shame on the bbc for being so woke that it takes any accusations against men "seriously" when they allegedly happened so long ago that the man will have sod all chance of being able to prove the women are lying <deleted>.

So you don't think that a celebrity accused of being a rapist is newsworthy? The fact that these allegedly assaults happened 5+ years ago is irrelevant, unless you believe that the allegations should not be investigated. 

 

Brand doesn't have to prove that he is innocent. The accusers have to be prove that he is guilty. Presumably, Channel 4 and The Times believe that there is substance to these allegations, otherwise they are leaving themselves open to libel claims. It's noticeable that Brand hasn't threatened libel action. I'm sure that his mate, Elon Musk could underwrite any writ if he was that confident.

 

Rather than immediately shout 'Woke' and 'Misogyny' at the earliest opportunity, maybe you should look at the evidence firstly.

[n00dle]

8 hours ago, placeholder said:

What evidence did JonnyF provide that Brand was "dropping a lot of truth bombs lately"?

really?

[placeholder]

43 minutes ago, n00dle said:

really?

I personally have great confidence that you believe your comment is perceptive. Others might not.

[n00dle]

16 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I personally have great confidence that you believe your comment is perceptive. Others might not.

I personally beleive that your previous comment is disngenuous. Russel brand has been very publicly stirring the anti establishment pot, having recentlt given several contrvesial interviews where he has attacked the mainstream media.

Whether you agree his beliefs are "truth bombs" or not, you know exactly why some interests may want him muzzled.

I cant speak to his guilt or innocence, but i can definitely understand why the allegations may be coming to light now.

Then there is the matter of his very public drug and alcohol abuse which no doubt led to some very marginal behavior. that, in hindsight,  may prove difficult to defend  

[PETERTHEEATER]

In other news, sales, in Thailand, of Brand's Essence of Chicken have collapsed.

[Tropposurfer]

On 9/18/2023 at 3:20 PM, BritManToo said:

I thought he was gay?

He was a self-confessed sex-addict, as well as a full on Harry user. 

 

I just had a dog n bone chat from the old country and the news there said he'd had some of his podcast sponsors, or some sponsors, of some part of his online presence pulled today.

 

 

[giddyup]

23 hours ago, impulse said:

I still remember when it was held out as a safe and fun way to keep in touch with family and friends.

 

Edit:  I'd add that I also remember how Johnny Depp's career was ruined in a trial by social media.

 

And Kevin Spacey.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

YouTube for starters.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-66851698

 

 

Deplatforming him and taking away his living before he's even been before a judge/jury.

 

Cancel culture at it's finest. Once again by lefty bekind tech billionaires. You must be loving this.????

From your linked article:

 

“YouTube has suspended Russell Brand's channels from making money from adverts for "violating" its "creator responsibility policy".

 

And 

 

"If a creator's off-platform behaviour harms our users, employees or ecosystem, we take action," a YouTube spokesperson said on Tuesday.

 

So Brand has transgressed the terms of service he signed up to and you blame ‘lefties’.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, CharlieKo said:

In a rational world you are innocent until proven guilty. regardless of accusations! Now you are guilty until proven innocent. What a sad society will live in.

Actually not so.

 

In a rational world one is guilty as soon as one commits a crime.

 

Within the administration of Justice, which may or may not be entirely rational, one is ‘presumed innocent’ during investigation and through to the point of a jury verdict.

 

There is no presumption of innocence outside the justice system.

[Chomper Higgot]

36 minutes ago, n00dle said:

I personally beleive that your previous comment is disngenuous. Russel brand has been very publicly stirring the anti establishment pot, having recentlt given several contrvesial interviews where he has attacked the mainstream media.

Whether you agree his beliefs are "truth bombs" or not, you know exactly why some interests may want him muzzled.

I cant speak to his guilt or innocence, but i can definitely understand why the allegations may be coming to light now.

Then there is the matter of his very public drug and alcohol abuse which no doubt led to some very marginal behavior. that, in hindsight,  may prove difficult to defend  

So ‘the powers that be’ climbed into a Time Machine and went back to force Brand to behave in a manner that would, at an opportune moment, give cause for allegations of rape and sexual assault.

[Nick Carter icp]

35 minutes ago, n00dle said:

I personally beleive that your previous comment is disngenuous. Russel brand has been very publicly stirring the anti establishment pot, having recentlt given several contrvesial interviews where he has attacked the mainstream media.

Whether you agree his beliefs are "truth bombs" or not, you know exactly why some interests may want him muzzled.

I cant speak to his guilt or innocence, but i can definitely understand why the allegations may be coming to light now.

Then there is the matter of his very public drug and alcohol abuse which no doubt led to some very marginal behavior. that, in hindsight,  may prove difficult to defend  

Could be that there need to be a huge investigation about Jimmy Saville and all those involved and those who knew and participated and also an investigation into Epstein and Maxwell and Prince Andrew and the island  and people from the media who were involved .

   Instead of investigating and reporting the media frequently focuses on one "small" person to take the spotlight away from the bigger issue 

   

[Chomper Higgot]

It has been reported that Brand knew the allegations where coming after he was recently contacted by journalists for comment.

 

My punt is, Brand has known for a long time this was coming.

 

 

[n00dle]

8 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

So ‘the powers that be’ climbed into a Time Machine and went back to force Brand to behave in a manner that would, at an opportune moment, give cause for allegations of rape and sexual assault.

 

I dont see where i said anything of the like.  I wasn't even aware this time machine you speak of was even a thing. I am also not denying that the allegations may be true.  I just think the timing is mighty convienient. 

 

Your rhetorical flourishes are both patronizing and tiresome. 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, n00dle said:

 

I dont see where i said anything of the like.  I wasn't even aware this time machine you speak of was even a thing. I am also not denying that the allegations may be true.  I just think the timing is mighty convienient. 

 

Your rhetorical flourishes are both patronizing and tiresome. 

 

Likewise your crackpot conspiracy nonsense.

[CharlieKo]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

In a rational world one is guilty as soon as one commits a crime.

So far there are only accusations. So no, one is not guilty until a crime has been proven. Or are you judge, Jury and executioner before the fact!

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, CharlieKo said:

So far there are only accusations. So no, one is not guilty until a crime has been proven. Or are you judge, Jury and executioner before the fact!

You are misinterpreting jurisprudence with logical reality.

 

Lots of people commit crimes but never stand trial.

 

They remain guilty of the crimes they committed regardless of their luck dodging trial.

[CharlieKo]

11 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You are misinterpreting jurisprudence with logical reality.

 

Lots of people commit crimes but never stand trial.

 

They remain guilty of the crimes they committed regardless of their luck dodging trial.

Well, I'm talking specifically about Russell Brand. Not generalising about crimes committed and whether the criminal was caught or not!