Russell Brand Faces Potential Charges as Police Submit File to Prosecutors

[Hummin]

5 hours ago, jippytum said:

Don't like the guy. But they cautioned him a year ago and ruined his career. 

 Time is long overdue for the CPS to put up or shut up. 

Enemy of the state, of course they have to deal with it, and he made himself an easy target! Cant say he is not guilty? 

[OneMoreFarang]

1 hour ago, RayC said:

So all woman who are flattered by the attention of a Lothario are 'asking for it', have only themselves to blame and can't have been raped?

 

No, nobody should be raped.

But on the other side, women should think at least for a second of what they are doing.

I.e. is it advisable for a woman to walk at night in a dark street in a bad neighborhood with sexy clothes? No. But that doesn't mean every woman who does that should be raped.

And with this guy, as far as I know he doesn't make a secrete out of his sexual desires. Like: I want it all and now and just the way I want it. If you come to see me than that is what you should expect and maybe that is what you will get.

Summary: Think for at least a second of what you want to do before you do it.

 

[MalcolmB]

He is going to populate in prison with that hair bun. 
 

After seeing that picture I call guilty. Of what exactly I am not sure, but lock him up anyway.

[JimTripper]

I always felt that there was something weird about this guy. Something about his mouth feels diseased when he talks. Just a vibe I got.

 

I even went so far as to block him on youtube because I felt there was something coming out of his mouth at me. I rarely block people so it was unusual to do it with him without even really listening to his views.

 

I wonder if any off the allegations involve his mouth in any way. Would not be surprised and it would validate my hunch.

[BangkokReady]

5 hours ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

why have these women decided to go to the police now, or last year?

 

He's asking too many questions.

[BangkokReady]

He has a history of being a bit of a philanderer.  Most of these pick-up types are abusive and manipulative.

[BusyB]

8 hours ago, oxo1947 said:

 

I am not Victim shaming but should you wait nearly 20 years before complaining...... Or in the latest cases wait till the guy dies. 

 

This last few weeks Alex Salmon --The Harrods guy etc , all complaints after they have nailed the coffin lid down. 

 

You are victim shaming to tackle your first attempt at diversion. 'But' is always the giveaway word with racists, victim shamers, misogynists and all the rest.

 

You are obviously also happily ignorant of the effects this kind of experience has on girls and women. And men. Many of whom came out decades later in various churches. But they never had to face this kind of foul tasting and frankly quite tedious opprobrium.

 

There is enough information available should you want to enlighten yourself.

[frank83628]

9 hours ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

 

 

"The police inquiry began after four women came forward in September 2023, accusing Brand of rape, sexual assault, and emotional abuse. These claims relate to incidents that allegedly occurred between 2006 and 2013"

 

I personally do not like the guy, he is somewhat weird, but some folks are? i don't think he has any talent and is therefore overrated.

Having said that these allegations are 11 to 18 years old, if my math is correct and always begs the question why have these women decided to go to the police now, or last year?

The police have spent an awful lot of time and effort it seems, to build a case against him and now decided to forward it to the CPS.

If his name was Mohamed Al Fayed would the police have done the same?

the allegations came just around the time he was very outspoken on certain matters and gaining popularity. then boom, 'sex scandal'  what a coincidence. 

[josephbloggs]

2 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

the allegations came just around the time he was very outspoken on certain matters and gaining popularity. then boom, 'sex scandal'  what a coincidence. 

Utter nonsense. "Gaining popularity"??  He's been famous for at least 20 years.

[frank83628]

28 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

Utter nonsense. "Gaining popularity"??  He's been famous for at least 20 years.

yes, of course, but he wan't on terrestrial TV much in recent times, i was referring to through his youtube channel and the topics he was covering, covid & vaccines, Ukraine, US politics. his YT channel grew by over 1 million subs in the short time since i'd been following him.n

do you think it right the UK government contact YT and get his channel demonetised before an charges are filed? why would the UK government even get involve in a matter like that in the first place. surely any action is take after a conviction

Edited Monday at 03:54 PM by frank83628

[frank83628]

7 hours ago, josephbloggs said:

Eh?? Because a handful of "conspiracy theories" ended up being true that means you can dream up any old nonsense and it's ok?

What about the millions of conspiracy theories that ended up just being conspiracy theories?

like what? 

[bendejo]

He thinks he can talk his way out of anything, but IMO he comes off as as a dumb-azz rapper without a beat box. 

Seems to do well for him financially.

 

[RayC]

12 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

 

No, nobody should be raped.

But on the other side, women should think at least for a second of what they are doing.

I.e. is it advisable for a woman to walk at night in a dark street in a bad neighborhood with sexy clothes? No. But that doesn't mean every woman who does that should be raped.

And with this guy, as far as I know he doesn't make a secrete out of his sexual desires. Like: I want it all and now and just the way I want it. If you come to see me than that is what you should expect and maybe that is what you will get.

Summary: Think for at least a second of what you want to do before you do it.

 

 

Your first sentence is correct: "Nobody should be raped".

 

There is no "... but".

[OneMoreFarang]

2 hours ago, RayC said:

Your first sentence is correct: "Nobody should be raped".

 

There is no "... but".

Ok, change the "but" to "and" if that makes you feel better.

Or do you think there is no connection in peoples' behavior and possible consequences?

It's like walking on a zebra crossing in Thailand: In theory you should be able to just walk over it without looking. In real life that is a very bad idea.

[oxo1947]

10 hours ago, BusyB said:

You are victim shaming to tackle your first attempt at diversion. 'But' is always the giveaway word with racists, victim shamers, misogynists and all the rest.

 

Frank-Its the usually the way of shutting down a discussion, by branding whoever puts up a legitimate point by stating they  are "racists, victim shamers, misogynists and all the rest."  I dont know who all the rest are.

 

I can understand a child coming forward at a latter date when adult  to say they had been molested. But if you dont think that there shouldn't  be some skepticism when  400 adult women come forward to say they have been molested by the guy who died years ago-- then we can just differ, but I wont throw names around because you just dont follow my narrative.

[BusyB]

6 hours ago, oxo1947 said:

 

Frank-Its the usually the way of shutting down a discussion, by branding whoever puts up a legitimate point by stating they  are "racists, victim shamers, misogynists and all the rest."  I dont know who all the rest are.

 

I can understand a child coming forward at a latter date when adult  to say they had been molested. But if you dont think that there shouldn't  be some skepticism when  400 adult women come forward to say they have been molested by the guy who died years ago-- then we can just differ, but I wont throw names around because you just dont follow my narrative.

 

At least you admit you don't understand. That's a good starting point.

 

The 'but' is usually followed by a statement confirming exactly the opposite to the initial claim - as in your post.

 

You started with 'I'm not victim shaming' to then say 'but' and point a finger at the victims. It's much better all round just to tell a straight truth and say 'I don't understand'. Then a conversation becomes possible. See my first paragraph.

 

Noone is pointing a finger at Brand, who is running around pretending to be Jesus are they?  Overcompensation much? No-one asks 'why on earth would anyone do that to a woman?'. It's all about 'scepticism' of the claims.

 

There's plenty of stuff by renowned therapists and psychiatrists available on the subject - if you're really interested.

 

As an aside I have known a couple of women personally who struggled with this kind of thing. Believe me you never want to know that terror, the guilt and the shame and the fear those people suffer although it wasn't their fault, and how the experience cripples all your relationships. In most cases a lifetime of relationships. I honestly hope you never have to do the work of recovery, which progresses by stages and is rarely if ever complete.

 

It can indeed take decades to work up the strength to finally fight back, and it's a psychological Hamburger Hill, in which all institutions from police to social services are loaded against you. That is gradually changing but not fast enough.

 

The sadder part is how many more die with the secret after a ruined life.

[RayC]

7 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Ok, change the "but" to "and" if that makes you feel better.

Or do you think there is no connection in peoples' behavior and possible consequences?

It's like walking on a zebra crossing in Thailand: In theory you should be able to just walk over it without looking. In real life that is a very bad idea.

 

I agree, and the overwhelming majority of people take precautions in order to mitigate against risk.

 

However, the fact remains that there is no justification for rape even if a person is walking through a 'dodgy' area stark naked.

[mikeymike100]

On 11/4/2024 at 4:53 PM, mrfill said:

Well at least they did convict. In the case of establishment favourites 'sir' Jimmy Savile and 'sir' Cyril Smith they were allowed to get away with it for decades. One a LibDem MP and the other being Thatcher's poster boy, and I don't recall either being Pakistani.

Whilst you are correct, in that some were allowed to get away with it for decades, the scale of the abuse in Rotherham was on another level.

 

Suggest you read the Jay report !

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy4ynzppk80o

 

"Prof Jay described the abuse as "appalling". She found children had been raped by multiple attackers, trafficked to other towns and cities in the north of England, abducted and beaten.

Some were doused in petrol and threatened with being set alight, while others were threatened with guns, made to watch "brutally violent rapes" and warned they would be next if they told anyone.

In just over a third of cases, the victims were previously known to social services because of child protection and neglect issues.

Prof Jay wrote in her report: "By far the majority of perpetrators were described as 'Asian' by victims, yet throughout the entire period, councillors did not engage directly with the Pakistani-heritage community to discuss how best they could jointly address the issue.

"Some councillors seemed to think it was a one-off problem, which they hoped would go away."

She added some council staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought racist; others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so."

[Chomper Higgot]

On 11/5/2024 at 8:36 AM, OneMoreFarang said:

Ok, change the "but" to "and" if that makes you feel better.

Or do you think there is no connection in peoples' behavior and possible consequences?

It's like walking on a zebra crossing in Thailand: In theory you should be able to just walk over it without looking. In real life that is a very bad idea.

Minimizing the crimes of rapist by apportioning blame to their victims.

 

 

 

[Nick Carter icp]

On 11/5/2024 at 8:36 AM, OneMoreFarang said:

Ok, change the "but" to "and" if that makes you feel better.

Or do you think there is no connection in peoples' behavior and possible consequences?

It's like walking on a zebra crossing in Thailand: In theory you should be able to just walk over it without looking. In real life that is a very bad idea.

 

   Not talking about crossing the road in Thailand though. 

If one persons sexxually assualts another peerson, its wholly the perpetrators fault .

[OneMoreFarang]

11 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Minimizing the crimes of rapist by apportioning blame to their victims.

 

Nobody is minimizing any crimes.

Next time please take lots of cash and gold with you and then go to a dark poor area at night. And then see what happens.

And don't forget to explain to the robbers that they shouldn't do that.

Good luck!

 

 

[OneMoreFarang]

Just now, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   Not talking about crossing the road in Thailand though. 

If one persons sexxually assualts another peerson, its wholly the perpetrators fault .

No, it's also the fault of the person who exposed herself to unnecessary danger.

What is so difficult to understand about the concept of common sense?

Bad guys including robbers and rapist exist. Pretending they don't exist and pretending they don't prefer easy targets is just ignoring reality.

[Nick Carter icp]

1 minute ago, OneMoreFarang said:

 

Nobody is minimizing any crimes.

Next time please take lots of cash and gold with you and then go to a dark poor area at night. And then see what happens.

And don't forget to explain to the robbers that they shouldn't do that.

Good luck!

 

 

 

   We aren't talking about going to a poor area at night wearing lots of gold though .

   Why cant you keep to the actual subject ?

Russell Brand is completely responsible for his own actions .

He followed a woman into a toilet and sexually assaulted her .

He is solely responsible to that or is it that the woman shouldn't have provoked him by going to the toilet ?

[Nick Carter icp]

4 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

No, it's also the fault of the person who exposed herself to unnecessary danger.

 

 

   Really ?

 So a Woman goes into a toilet for a wee , Russell follows her in there and sexually assaults her .

   How is that the woman's fault ?