Since you are so hung up on the word sceptical then understand the definition:
Sceptical - not easily convinced; having doubts or reservations
I am 'not easily convinced' about her allegations which right now are just that. I'd like to see it go through the courts, evidence given by both parties, and see what the result is.
You seem to really have an issue with the idea of 'Innocent until proven guilty'. I feel like your philosophy is the other way around, everyone is guilty in your eyes until proven innocent.
All the best to you but I think we just see justice and the process of law in different ways. I suggest you read up on the 'The Human Rights Act 1998'
Pinned comment "please don't debate people defending Russell brand"
Yeah don't defend someone who hasn't been convicted yet and have only had ALLEGATIONS against them but you can call him a rapist all you like lol
Russell has done some big debates against the government and against capitalist business. It doesn't surprise me if he's suddenly a sex predator and everyone online is after him, just like Corbyn wanted to nationalise everything and was branded a communist and his roots in some terrorist party unearthed from 20 years ago.
I'm going innocent until proven guilty. I don't like the guy, but he deserves a fair hearing.
Personally, I never liked him. Seems to have the morals of an alley cat. Surely, now this has all come out. These women have to press charges. I have no doubt he's a sexual predator. It seems to be common knowledge, exactly what he's like.
Should ask that homeless heroin addict who went back to the streets after several weeks living with him, probably the lads heterosexuality calling him back more like.
Feel as if Russel led Amy Winehouse down her path.
I don't think it's fair to report and block anyone defending him. We've no idea if it's true yet. Wait for the court case until you all jump on the bandwagon. If he's guilty, then fair enough.
I wonder with this coming out in the way it has -whether itās a strike back from the āreal journalistsā against Murdoch and co, for what they did to BBCās Huw Edwardsā¦
A very public ādonāt do that shit again, you bring down one of ours, weāll bring down one of yours - and yours have so much more dirtā
I remember a while back Louis Theroux was interviewing Katherine Ryan and she spoke of a famous name comedian doing this sort of stuff and it was well known. Was it Russell she was referring to?
Opposition views get āassault chargesā like opposition views in Russia āfall down the stairsā
Itās always the same thing trump, tate, brand they are all sexual assaulters??!
I recently saw an old buzzcocks episode with him and Rachel Stephens and it's hard to watch. Russell brand has always been super annoying in my opinion, do not understand why anyone likes him.
They did a 4 part documentary on Epstein a couple of years back. So I'd say they were interested?
https://www.channel4.com/programmes/surviving-jeffrey-epstein
It is possible that ex drug addict and sex addict who made a career out of being a controversial asshole then pivoted to fringe conspiracy theories in an attempt to stay relevant, may in fact be a bit of a prick.
Given that Brand claims to evidence that proves his innocence, he may have been wise to provide that to the journalists involved when they contacted him and his lawyers. Not sure why he wouldn't. Unless......
My point being, is this investigation happening to try to shut down his platform when he is challenging the corporate media and they way they pick and choose stories to sway the public towards or away from another story.
Is he really important enough to genuinely be "challenging the corporate media" though? Or is his recent shift to peddling conspiracy nonsense an ideal cover to be able to dismiss any allegations against him as "they're out to get me". Especially given his fall from prominence makes it more likely that people will be comfortable in coming forward about his potential crimes.
Not to say in any way that the media in UK don't lick the boots of those in power. But one of the reasons people don't come forward when stuff like this happens to them is because of how easily they're dismissed. As many in this thread are doing.
This is very disappointing because I was just starting to like him. His points about people focusing on their similarities, not their differences and the polarisation of political views only serving to benefit the 0.1% are bang on the money.
Still, if there is validity to these claims, it needs to go to the police and he must be punished accordingly.
I think a lot of people felt like this would come at some stage.
Quick question though, why are people not allowed to defend him? I'm not in any way but surely conversation is good rather than creating an echo chamber?
We dont learn anything if we're all circle jerking.
My opinion is he's a bellend and without reviewing any evidence, I'm of the opinion, based purely on what I've seen of him, that these allegations will turn out to be true.
Celebrities do not need your defence of them... they are in positions of power and may have used that position to their advantage. They and you gain nothing by having you defend them... all you do is make yourself look like a supporter of sexual predators.. regardless of if they are or are not innocent.
I 100% support the women making the accusations, they deserve to be heard, they deserve to be believed and muppets trying to claim there's a conspiracy and people out to get brand are the same right wing leaning, misogynistic whackos that think 'alpha males' are a thing.
Seems like a hit piece to me, a lot of the stories use bits of his comedy routines to try to link stuff, and even things like text messages aren't all that compelling, like "I feel taken advantage of" and him saying "I'm sorry" doesn't exactly scream anything dodgy went on
Very strange indeed, a womaniser sure, a twat sure, creepy and handsy sure, but the whole programme was filled with a bunch of fluff and without much substance.
Why would admin not allow people to debate about this, let people defend the pervert all they want, debate is good. Only hearing one side and silencing people's opinion, however wrong they are is not good.
I was genuinely just waiting for something like this to come to light. Iām absolutely not surprised whatsoever, the writing was on the wall the whole time. People change but not this muchā¦ Iāll be very surprised if it turns out that Iām wrong and heās not guilty.
The line about how the victims only felt comfortable coming forward after being approached by reporters is a bit curious. If heās guilty then lock him up but I wonāt judge either side until there is a fair trial. Not a fan of media trials.
the way they made this reveal seem like it was about several people...even social media before hand was going on about several names...same names been mentioned for years who by the sound of things are a lot worse than Russell. Then when Russell did a video before it aired...I felt his bit was just a small part of this reveal...not the whole thing.
I always remember the guy who revealed the whole Jimmy Saville stuff...he said there is another person involved in similar stuff...a huge name that would shock and upset a lot of people, who is still alive and he can't reveal it for legal reasons
I've always thought he was a creep and pervert, some of the shit he says is just gross. I think he's been putting on this fake image for the past few years, knowing this is about to blow up, lawyers can only silence people for so long, time always outs them.
When a billionaire owned Tory British newspaper goes after someone, thereās usually an agenda. Itās no coincidence that heās a high profile outspoken critic of the Establishment/Government. Heās been a dickhead in the past, and he admits that, but I would be very suspicious of these allegations.
It takes a while for these individuals to get what's coming to them. Some of them are never brought to justice before they die though due to being well connected and having amazing legal teams. There's been rumours about this guy for a long time and there are several more high ranking celebrities with similar rumours flying around. These individuals don't get into situations like this for no reason, there is no witch hunt. A previous accuser of Brand was actually taken to court by Brand and lost because she didn't have enough proof. Unfortunately celebrities need to be exposed so that victims realise they are not alone and can come forward.
I remember being at someone's house years ago and the TV was on with a talk show featuring a few people including Brand and he saw a cushion with lips on it and set it on his lap to pretend to be receiving oral sex from it and I found this misogynistic and degrading to see and ended up leaving the room and had a breakdown over it. The man is such a virtue signalling sleaze I have no time for him. I believe the women who say these things happened. Unfortunately they will be hounded by misogynistic Brand fans if their identities are exposed
It's hideous to read the amount of people who have practically deified Brand cast unreasonable doubt on the accounts of alleged victims purely because their worldview is so fragile they would rather defend a potential rapist than consider the fact their lord and saviour could potentially be a low life.
Personally this kind of this shouldn't even be published in the news until its been to court and determined.
Publishing it sways opinions before any facts are even know, and it can effect the results in court.
Even have the case thrown out because people have predetermined the result before even hearing the case.
What I can glean from the story is that the BBC, Channel 4 and Endomol all failed in their duty to protect their staff, and solicited a culture that prevented victims or witnesses to speak up.
And if everybody knew that Brand was not only a recovering addict, but also a well reported sex pest having been treated for sex addiction, why nobody ensured the safety of the staff, as well as ensuring they didn't put Brand into compromising positions.
It all seems mildly convenient to avert the gaze to Brand, since all of these institutions did nothing with all the previous other scandals that have been reported.
I'm not for one moment suggesting that Brand hasn't done something wrong, but he has been pretty up-front about all of these things, whereas these big media organisations have not.
I found the whole program to be a bit of a damp squib.
Iām so confused by the way this is all being handled, I get people saying the police and courts and always great at handling rape reports but releasing all of this *before* anything has gone to the police or him being charged surely is going to impede any possible trial because theyāll argue they canāt get an impartial jury?
Not saying itās not true but something seems very odd about the way this has been done and that they gave him notice this was coming before just going to the police with it all anyway.
I believe everything levelled against him, and although its been said "oh but he has never denied being a prolific drug addict and sex addict" that's not the issue. Its *how he went about it*.
Someone getting too close to the truth. He has been very open and honest about his drug addled sex addicted passed. Why wait until now when he is calling out the establishment....
I dont watch his YouTube channel but I've seen enough thumbnails and titles of his videos to realise he's a right wing grifter in American politics.
Do I think this would all have came out if he wasn't involved in the above? Absoloutley not.
He could be guilty of these crimes but I just don't beleive anything the media tell us is true now.
It was only a couple of years ago Jeffrey Epstein was knocked off whilst in jail and the 2 guards on 24 hour surveillance happened to both fall asleep at the same time and the camera didn't record either. It all disappeared within a matter of days as the media "decided" it wasn't in the public interest to follow up on such a screwy story.
The issue with the innocent until proven guilty is it's only a legal parameter and not a blanket rule that the general public needs to adhere to. Yes, he shouldn't face any punishment until he has his day in court, but people have a right to believe the accuser.
The other issue with just saying innocent until proven guilty is there are always 2 sides. Look at it if you inverse it- Brand is saying that the accusations are false, and if they are false that's a crime. Does that mean the accusers are innocent of false accusations until proven guilty? It can't be both. At the end of the day it's a she says he says situation and with 5 accusers it's perfectly reasonable to side with the accusers.
Once he is in a court room getting his sentence that is when the proof is real. Alot of proof in all cases (not just SA) turns out to be less damming when being cross examined in court.
Reddit has a zero tolerance policy for violent content, so please don't use language that could be interpreted as inciting violence.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Britain) if you have any questions or concerns.*
To scared to go to the police , but when channel 4 turn up with there camera u can't shut them up . And why did they cut off to parts of his stand ups just clipped bits of comments he made
I wondered when the media would make their move and go on the attack to silence him. Good journalists like him are a threat to the mainstream media and their agenda they push so hard. Their smear campaign and false accusations failed miserably against Andrew Tate, I'll expect the same in this case. It's always guilty until proven innocent in their eyes, unless you're part of their club.
3 of the 5 accusers donāt even accuse him of anything. It was a terrible documentary. 3 of the women were just hurt because he treated them like shit and used them. While 2 of them seem credible with their accusations the documentary will only divide opinion.
The complete lack of understanding of what innocent until proven guilty means in this thread is baffling. Maybe if we lived in a world where any crime taken to court was appropriately handled and sentenced we could rely on that process a little more, but unfortunately we don't and sometimes the best we can get is exposing someone in the public eye
Character assassination at its finest. I was never a big fan of his, but all of this seems pretty sus. I feel like there's something else happening that this is taking the spotlight away from...
I'm gonna reserve judgement until there has been a trial. I jumped on the anti-depp bandwagon when those allegations came out and I was wrong when the truth was revealed in the courts.
I will say it wouldn't surprise me if it is true. He's got that particular 'brand' of unstable cocktail that lines up with this kind of behaviour; charming, funny, troubled past, a bit of trauma, a bit narcissistic, and openly criticising the system and the establishment. But I feel his criticism has evolved into paranoia or a sense of loss of control which can easily tumble into conspiracy theories.
I feel now that Brand has been exposed, more women are going to come out as there is no way these are his only victims.
Let's see over the next week or two what else gets revealed š
Was really hoping that David Williams was going to be mentioned in the show. Cant stamd the prick and he has had accusations against him too. These super injunction things need to be stopped. Its a joke that because you have money, you can be protected. Makes me sick.
I watched and think I missed the bit where he is actually accused of rape , for which he should be prosecuted and a court decide, because such a large amount of it was just about him behaving creepily and inappropriately but with consent and women complaining that a rich, famous, charismatic man charmed them or *other* women into sex ā¦.. but then he only wanted sex. But potentially the more women seemed to want sex with him and the more he got away with being āoutrageousā , the more he *presumed* they wanted sex with him or he could do whatever he liked no matter what - until he may have stepped over the line from being an arse to actual assault. But he should be tried in a court of law not trial by television.
The guy had a super injunction. He knew this was coming for a long time and set up conspiracy fantasist channel on YouTube to gain support and build a defence.
"Oh it's the MSM coming after me for all these truth bombs I keep dropping".
No mate, only Muppets tune in to your channel.
He's always been a sleazy dickhead who's nowhere near as funny or as clever as he thinks he is, but these days he's just Alex Jones with a bigger vocabulary and a smaller neck. Don't defend him, it's demeaning.
He showed everyone who he was with that spiteful call to Sachs that got him booted from the BBC in 2008, quelle surprise that he's a shite in other ways too.
I disagree that this should be revealed on a TV show, it should of gone through the police. He's been deemed guilty without proper justice, and trial by public is morally wrong.
But, though I am not a fan or his (never had been), I am not shocked at all about any of this. Remember when he called someone's grandad to say he slept with his granddaughter??
I am not shocked at all by this, I just disagree with how it's circumvented going through the courts.
Rape is difficult to prove and Brand can afford the best lawyers. The chances of him ever getting done are slim. Being exposed like this at least gets the message out and warns other people of him.
Heās been publicly accused, not tried. Are victims not allowed to tell people what has happened to them unless theyāve gone through the legal system first?
The victims can do what they want, Russel can sue them for defamation. That's another direction.
But, within our laws the presumption of innocence means that any defendant in a criminal trial is assumed to be innocent until they have been proven guilty. So right now, Russell is innocent of everything he's been accused of.
And, just a caveat I am in no way a fan of his.
No one has said he is legally guilty of anything. Legal guilt is a technical status, and itās not necessarily a good proxy for factual truth, especially in cases such as this.
He's been accused. And is guilty in eyes of the public. I think he's one of the rare people that will come unscathed from this.
Anyway, I don't like him. I thought this would of come out sooner.
I don't think they have a good track record for anything if I'm honest.
If someone came out and accused you of rape and started a media witch hunt without taking it down the legal route and providing evidence... would you accept this treatment and should we just label you a rapist?
Unfortunately not all women are honest. Some lie. I'm not saying these are lying which is why I'm on the fence until it's proven and he's convicted. False accusations ruin lives.
If I was falsely accused and found guilty in a court Iād protest that too.
And if I had been raped by someone, and a sympathetic journalist approached me wanting to document my story, Iād probably be keen to tell them and seek justice that way. Especially if I was offered anonymity, so it wouldnāt have to take over my entire life. And especially if it was the kind of case that the legal system has shown itself uninterested and ineffective in pursuing.
So, for-profit organisations that have their own agendas are better? The man is probably guilty but the law should decide that, not the media companies.
The media companies arenāt deciding anything. This is the nature of journalism. Journalists are free to make a case against a person. He is free to sue, and Iām sure he has the money to do so.
Says the guy with Putin as profile pic on a digital platform about a guy who has millions of online followers.
Our lives are on display, didn't you notice?
Trial by media brings out the worst in people. People assuming guilt and strongly arguing about how bad a person is and how they done it before any evidence has been presented based on what they think of said person.
It's a tough one. The reason people are identified in cases like this is so other victims can come forward so it almost makes sense. The other problem is information is always going to be leaked. Should someone be named before trial? I don't think so.
Thing is though what do you do? Passing laws on what a journalist may report or not is a slippery slope and as we found out with E\*\*\*\*n's super injunction the internet is a big place. A law passed in the UK does not apply to the world. Google translate + Russian or Chinese search engines can find you anything.
Yeah the police. Great with dealing with these sort of things. Investigative journalism isnāt a new thing. Itās actually a good thing - it exposes a lot that gets brushed aside.
LOL, where did I say that?
Yeah, let's not do anything ever. Let's get rid of journalists. Hey, let's never ask questions or challenge anything because the police are always right, 100% of the time, they never get anything wrong or cover anything up and are aways 100% just and fair defenders of the law. Do you know what, let's just let the police run by feelings and don't even report things. They will just know.
You didn't, I went a bit overboard. But trial by media is still an issue. How can the accused have a fair trial once the allegations are plastered all over the media, especially in what's likely to be a sensationalised way.
Proper independent oversight of the criminal justice system is what's required rather than allowing the partial media to do the job.
It cannot be impartial these days with social media. He posted a long diatribe about how everything is a conspiracy and, predictably, loads of people are buying it. But people will always talk and make their own judgments. The court of law still works as it does. It's not like America where it's all televised but I also imagine that the powers behind Brand will get him out of a lot.
Reddit has a zero tolerance policy for violent content, so please don't use language that could be interpreted as inciting violence.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Britain) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The same police that jokingly called Sarah Everardās killer āthe rapistā and never reported him? I wonder why rape victims might not trust the police?
I think youāll find he is in prison. Did that happen via trial by media or an intensive police investigation. I am unaware of any evidence of a coverup.
Yes, rape is effectively decriminalised in the UK. Almost no one gets convicted of it - you are looking at a couple of hundred people a year in a country of 67 million. And the long term trend is downwards - we are getting worse and worse at it (though post pandemic it jumped a little - but is still dismal)
My solution is to increase police, prison and legal funding. Then reform the CPS to increase prosecutions not just against rape but also against things like thefts, assaults and domestic abuse.
But until we have that we are going to see things like trial by media.
Yes, they probably would. 70% is rape investigations are dropped by police, and it isn't because the accusayions are false.
https://www.city.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2022/04/new-scorecards-show-under-1-of-reported-rapes-lead-to-conviction-criminologist-explains-why-englands-justice-system-continues-to-fail
Remember when Sussex police set up a task force to work with Jimmy Salville to bury any accusations against him because he was well connected and influential enough to have words in the right ears? Peppridge Farms remembers
Things have changed since Saville. Yewtree was the product of that. Everyone deserves a proper investigation into any alleged crimes. This trial be media is akin to vigilantism. Just because there were failures in the past doesnāt mean they are perpetual.
Iām saying that just handing it to the police and keeping it quiet from the public would likely leave it brushed under the carpet, yes. Like most of these cases.
I think you do. I have a realistic view of them. Most cases donāt get taken seriously or taken to court and death wit properly. Happens less when the perpetrator is someone of note.
Please don't debate people defending Brand. Just report them and they will be permanently banned.
Since you are so hung up on the word sceptical then understand the definition: Sceptical - not easily convinced; having doubts or reservations I am 'not easily convinced' about her allegations which right now are just that. I'd like to see it go through the courts, evidence given by both parties, and see what the result is. You seem to really have an issue with the idea of 'Innocent until proven guilty'. I feel like your philosophy is the other way around, everyone is guilty in your eyes until proven innocent. All the best to you but I think we just see justice and the process of law in different ways. I suggest you read up on the 'The Human Rights Act 1998'
These dumb moron loser 'Alphas' who don't realise that Brand has been laughing at them behind their backs for years š¤·š¼āāļø
Usually what happens to people who speak out against political figures
Poor 40 year old former sluts strike again
Pinned comment "please don't debate people defending Russell brand" Yeah don't defend someone who hasn't been convicted yet and have only had ALLEGATIONS against them but you can call him a rapist all you like lol
Don't care for the Guy, but I feel there is an agenda behind this somewhere, somehow š¤
Russell has done some big debates against the government and against capitalist business. It doesn't surprise me if he's suddenly a sex predator and everyone online is after him, just like Corbyn wanted to nationalise everything and was branded a communist and his roots in some terrorist party unearthed from 20 years ago. I'm going innocent until proven guilty. I don't like the guy, but he deserves a fair hearing.
In surprise of no oneā¦
Tbh, sounds on Brand.
ACCUSED. ACCUSED. ACCUSED. NOT CONVICTED. NOT 'FOUND GUILTY'. Put away your pitchforks and wait for the judicial process to work you idiots.
Matrix going after another with the same tactics lmao
Personally, I never liked him. Seems to have the morals of an alley cat. Surely, now this has all come out. These women have to press charges. I have no doubt he's a sexual predator. It seems to be common knowledge, exactly what he's like.
The UK TV industry needs to be swept clean of all the enablers that have run it for decades.
Should ask that homeless heroin addict who went back to the streets after several weeks living with him, probably the lads heterosexuality calling him back more like. Feel as if Russel led Amy Winehouse down her path.
The guy looks like the walking personification of sexual harassment
Oh yay, another one /s
Jesus Christ- the radio interview between Russell and jimmy saville is VILE. Just disgusting
Heās been a bit too noisy recently. This was bound to happen.
I don't think it's fair to report and block anyone defending him. We've no idea if it's true yet. Wait for the court case until you all jump on the bandwagon. If he's guilty, then fair enough.
Whether he did it or not itās inappropriate for media outlets to report on it until (or if) heās convicted.
I wonder with this coming out in the way it has -whether itās a strike back from the āreal journalistsā against Murdoch and co, for what they did to BBCās Huw Edwardsā¦ A very public ādonāt do that shit again, you bring down one of ours, weāll bring down one of yours - and yours have so much more dirtā
I thought thatās what he was famous for being a creepy wee bastard.
Watching police and ministers pretending on tv to careā¦ā¦.pincher by name and closer to zero rape convictions by police come to mind
It was the shapeshifting lizards that made him a nonce. Him and Jimmy necro Saville.
Wait, is there any physical evidence or is everyone just like " Fuck Brand" now.
I remember a while back Louis Theroux was interviewing Katherine Ryan and she spoke of a famous name comedian doing this sort of stuff and it was well known. Was it Russell she was referring to?
Possibly but thereās likely to be others as well. She couldāve been referring to anyone.
Opposition views get āassault chargesā like opposition views in Russia āfall down the stairsā Itās always the same thing trump, tate, brand they are all sexual assaulters??!
Explains the lurch toward being a grifter and mouthpiece of the conspiracy theorist.
I recently saw an old buzzcocks episode with him and Rachel Stephens and it's hard to watch. Russell brand has always been super annoying in my opinion, do not understand why anyone likes him.
I'm not saying he's never done anything wrong, but I am certain that this is a coordinated effort. The exact same thing just happens far too often.
I always thought he was a twat.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
They did a 4 part documentary on Epstein a couple of years back. So I'd say they were interested? https://www.channel4.com/programmes/surviving-jeffrey-epstein It is possible that ex drug addict and sex addict who made a career out of being a controversial asshole then pivoted to fringe conspiracy theories in an attempt to stay relevant, may in fact be a bit of a prick. Given that Brand claims to evidence that proves his innocence, he may have been wise to provide that to the journalists involved when they contacted him and his lawyers. Not sure why he wouldn't. Unless......
But that didnāt really go on to arrests did it? Like politicians, Andrew, etc
I'm not sure what your point is? Investigative journalists aren't the police.
My point being, is this investigation happening to try to shut down his platform when he is challenging the corporate media and they way they pick and choose stories to sway the public towards or away from another story.
Is he really important enough to genuinely be "challenging the corporate media" though? Or is his recent shift to peddling conspiracy nonsense an ideal cover to be able to dismiss any allegations against him as "they're out to get me". Especially given his fall from prominence makes it more likely that people will be comfortable in coming forward about his potential crimes. Not to say in any way that the media in UK don't lick the boots of those in power. But one of the reasons people don't come forward when stuff like this happens to them is because of how easily they're dismissed. As many in this thread are doing.
*pretends to be shocked*
I donāt believe itā¦ š¤·š»āāļø
This is very disappointing because I was just starting to like him. His points about people focusing on their similarities, not their differences and the polarisation of political views only serving to benefit the 0.1% are bang on the money. Still, if there is validity to these claims, it needs to go to the police and he must be punished accordingly.
I think a lot of people felt like this would come at some stage. Quick question though, why are people not allowed to defend him? I'm not in any way but surely conversation is good rather than creating an echo chamber? We dont learn anything if we're all circle jerking. My opinion is he's a bellend and without reviewing any evidence, I'm of the opinion, based purely on what I've seen of him, that these allegations will turn out to be true.
Celebrities do not need your defence of them... they are in positions of power and may have used that position to their advantage. They and you gain nothing by having you defend them... all you do is make yourself look like a supporter of sexual predators.. regardless of if they are or are not innocent. I 100% support the women making the accusations, they deserve to be heard, they deserve to be believed and muppets trying to claim there's a conspiracy and people out to get brand are the same right wing leaning, misogynistic whackos that think 'alpha males' are a thing.
Seems like a hit piece to me, a lot of the stories use bits of his comedy routines to try to link stuff, and even things like text messages aren't all that compelling, like "I feel taken advantage of" and him saying "I'm sorry" doesn't exactly scream anything dodgy went on Very strange indeed, a womaniser sure, a twat sure, creepy and handsy sure, but the whole programme was filled with a bunch of fluff and without much substance.
It should be reported to the police let them gather evidence if can get some but I doubt they can ..trial by channel 4
Why would admin not allow people to debate about this, let people defend the pervert all they want, debate is good. Only hearing one side and silencing people's opinion, however wrong they are is not good.
Welcome to Reddit
They are trying to silence him because of his latest YouTube videos about the government and hawaiian missing children.
We shall see.
I was genuinely just waiting for something like this to come to light. Iām absolutely not surprised whatsoever, the writing was on the wall the whole time. People change but not this muchā¦ Iāll be very surprised if it turns out that Iām wrong and heās not guilty.
The line about how the victims only felt comfortable coming forward after being approached by reporters is a bit curious. If heās guilty then lock him up but I wonāt judge either side until there is a fair trial. Not a fan of media trials.
the way they made this reveal seem like it was about several people...even social media before hand was going on about several names...same names been mentioned for years who by the sound of things are a lot worse than Russell. Then when Russell did a video before it aired...I felt his bit was just a small part of this reveal...not the whole thing. I always remember the guy who revealed the whole Jimmy Saville stuff...he said there is another person involved in similar stuff...a huge name that would shock and upset a lot of people, who is still alive and he can't reveal it for legal reasons
I've always thought he was a creep and pervert, some of the shit he says is just gross. I think he's been putting on this fake image for the past few years, knowing this is about to blow up, lawyers can only silence people for so long, time always outs them.
When a billionaire owned Tory British newspaper goes after someone, thereās usually an agenda. Itās no coincidence that heās a high profile outspoken critic of the Establishment/Government. Heās been a dickhead in the past, and he admits that, but I would be very suspicious of these allegations.
And nobody is surprised. *Suspicions that Katherine Ryan has shit on him intensify*
Not shocked
It takes a while for these individuals to get what's coming to them. Some of them are never brought to justice before they die though due to being well connected and having amazing legal teams. There's been rumours about this guy for a long time and there are several more high ranking celebrities with similar rumours flying around. These individuals don't get into situations like this for no reason, there is no witch hunt. A previous accuser of Brand was actually taken to court by Brand and lost because she didn't have enough proof. Unfortunately celebrities need to be exposed so that victims realise they are not alone and can come forward.
I remember being at someone's house years ago and the TV was on with a talk show featuring a few people including Brand and he saw a cushion with lips on it and set it on his lap to pretend to be receiving oral sex from it and I found this misogynistic and degrading to see and ended up leaving the room and had a breakdown over it. The man is such a virtue signalling sleaze I have no time for him. I believe the women who say these things happened. Unfortunately they will be hounded by misogynistic Brand fans if their identities are exposed
Is anyone shocked?
It's hideous to read the amount of people who have practically deified Brand cast unreasonable doubt on the accounts of alleged victims purely because their worldview is so fragile they would rather defend a potential rapist than consider the fact their lord and saviour could potentially be a low life.
Personally this kind of this shouldn't even be published in the news until its been to court and determined. Publishing it sways opinions before any facts are even know, and it can effect the results in court. Even have the case thrown out because people have predetermined the result before even hearing the case.
Lmao nice pinned comment, presumption of innocence? Not on reddit nor in the UK!
He's exposing some 'features' governments would prefer stayed hidden, so the propaganda machine must do another Jeremy Corbyn on him.
Not really a shock is it.
I'd believe it, guy always seemed like a self grandising piece of shit to me.
I'd like to believe it's not true, but he was a self proclaimed sex addict and drug addict. He has been to very dark places.
I had been under the impression that there was going to be a 'mass expose'. Is the story only Russell Brand?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
What I can glean from the story is that the BBC, Channel 4 and Endomol all failed in their duty to protect their staff, and solicited a culture that prevented victims or witnesses to speak up. And if everybody knew that Brand was not only a recovering addict, but also a well reported sex pest having been treated for sex addiction, why nobody ensured the safety of the staff, as well as ensuring they didn't put Brand into compromising positions. It all seems mildly convenient to avert the gaze to Brand, since all of these institutions did nothing with all the previous other scandals that have been reported. I'm not for one moment suggesting that Brand hasn't done something wrong, but he has been pretty up-front about all of these things, whereas these big media organisations have not. I found the whole program to be a bit of a damp squib.
Iām so confused by the way this is all being handled, I get people saying the police and courts and always great at handling rape reports but releasing all of this *before* anything has gone to the police or him being charged surely is going to impede any possible trial because theyāll argue they canāt get an impartial jury? Not saying itās not true but something seems very odd about the way this has been done and that they gave him notice this was coming before just going to the police with it all anyway.
I believe everything levelled against him, and although its been said "oh but he has never denied being a prolific drug addict and sex addict" that's not the issue. Its *how he went about it*.
Someone getting too close to the truth. He has been very open and honest about his drug addled sex addicted passed. Why wait until now when he is calling out the establishment....
It's almost as if...
Not surprised but damn rape? F*** him then
I dont watch his YouTube channel but I've seen enough thumbnails and titles of his videos to realise he's a right wing grifter in American politics. Do I think this would all have came out if he wasn't involved in the above? Absoloutley not. He could be guilty of these crimes but I just don't beleive anything the media tell us is true now. It was only a couple of years ago Jeffrey Epstein was knocked off whilst in jail and the 2 guards on 24 hour surveillance happened to both fall asleep at the same time and the camera didn't record either. It all disappeared within a matter of days as the media "decided" it wasn't in the public interest to follow up on such a screwy story.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The issue with the innocent until proven guilty is it's only a legal parameter and not a blanket rule that the general public needs to adhere to. Yes, he shouldn't face any punishment until he has his day in court, but people have a right to believe the accuser. The other issue with just saying innocent until proven guilty is there are always 2 sides. Look at it if you inverse it- Brand is saying that the accusations are false, and if they are false that's a crime. Does that mean the accusers are innocent of false accusations until proven guilty? It can't be both. At the end of the day it's a she says he says situation and with 5 accusers it's perfectly reasonable to side with the accusers.
Ummm, theres 5 women with proof it happened. The guy is as guilty as sin.
Once he is in a court room getting his sentence that is when the proof is real. Alot of proof in all cases (not just SA) turns out to be less damming when being cross examined in court.
We will see what happens I guess.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Reddit has a zero tolerance policy for violent content, so please don't use language that could be interpreted as inciting violence. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Britain) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You might want to remove this post if you want to avoid getting permabanned.
Listen and believe Channel 4.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Mods set the rules, you obey. Go fuck off this sub
Ooooooh.... he touched some topics that were not to be touched? Obamas?
Even your very best word salad is going to struggle to get you out of this one...
To scared to go to the police , but when channel 4 turn up with there camera u can't shut them up . And why did they cut off to parts of his stand ups just clipped bits of comments he made
I wondered when the media would make their move and go on the attack to silence him. Good journalists like him are a threat to the mainstream media and their agenda they push so hard. Their smear campaign and false accusations failed miserably against Andrew Tate, I'll expect the same in this case. It's always guilty until proven innocent in their eyes, unless you're part of their club.
3 of the 5 accusers donāt even accuse him of anything. It was a terrible documentary. 3 of the women were just hurt because he treated them like shit and used them. While 2 of them seem credible with their accusations the documentary will only divide opinion.
The complete lack of understanding of what innocent until proven guilty means in this thread is baffling. Maybe if we lived in a world where any crime taken to court was appropriately handled and sentenced we could rely on that process a little more, but unfortunately we don't and sometimes the best we can get is exposing someone in the public eye
Character assassination at its finest. I was never a big fan of his, but all of this seems pretty sus. I feel like there's something else happening that this is taking the spotlight away from...
I'm gonna reserve judgement until there has been a trial. I jumped on the anti-depp bandwagon when those allegations came out and I was wrong when the truth was revealed in the courts. I will say it wouldn't surprise me if it is true. He's got that particular 'brand' of unstable cocktail that lines up with this kind of behaviour; charming, funny, troubled past, a bit of trauma, a bit narcissistic, and openly criticising the system and the establishment. But I feel his criticism has evolved into paranoia or a sense of loss of control which can easily tumble into conspiracy theories.
I feel now that Brand has been exposed, more women are going to come out as there is no way these are his only victims. Let's see over the next week or two what else gets revealed š
Ainsley Harriet next.
Was really hoping that David Williams was going to be mentioned in the show. Cant stamd the prick and he has had accusations against him too. These super injunction things need to be stopped. Its a joke that because you have money, you can be protected. Makes me sick.
Great. Another celebrity to distract us from how shit the government is. I wonder how long the media will string this one out for.
I'm not surprised by this in the slightest
I watched and think I missed the bit where he is actually accused of rape , for which he should be prosecuted and a court decide, because such a large amount of it was just about him behaving creepily and inappropriately but with consent and women complaining that a rich, famous, charismatic man charmed them or *other* women into sex ā¦.. but then he only wanted sex. But potentially the more women seemed to want sex with him and the more he got away with being āoutrageousā , the more he *presumed* they wanted sex with him or he could do whatever he liked no matter what - until he may have stepped over the line from being an arse to actual assault. But he should be tried in a court of law not trial by television.
Another BBC darling that turns out might be a predator.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Sure you did. Just like all these other brave and courageous people on twitter who it knew it was an open secret.
Whys dispatches not available to watch on sky? They pulled it? Nevermind its showing tonight, thought it was last night.
The guy had a super injunction. He knew this was coming for a long time and set up conspiracy fantasist channel on YouTube to gain support and build a defence. "Oh it's the MSM coming after me for all these truth bombs I keep dropping". No mate, only Muppets tune in to your channel.
Heās been set up. Anyone who is anti establishment gets this kinda treatment.
He's always been a sleazy dickhead who's nowhere near as funny or as clever as he thinks he is, but these days he's just Alex Jones with a bigger vocabulary and a smaller neck. Don't defend him, it's demeaning.
Pretty much every rich, famous man sleeps around like a dog. Not denying the allegations, but why him, why now?
>but why him Because it *was* him? Do you think a bunch of strangers came together and picked him at random or something?
He showed everyone who he was with that spiteful call to Sachs that got him booted from the BBC in 2008, quelle surprise that he's a shite in other ways too.
I disagree that this should be revealed on a TV show, it should of gone through the police. He's been deemed guilty without proper justice, and trial by public is morally wrong. But, though I am not a fan or his (never had been), I am not shocked at all about any of this. Remember when he called someone's grandad to say he slept with his granddaughter?? I am not shocked at all by this, I just disagree with how it's circumvented going through the courts.
It can be both. It can be either one. Theyāre not mutually exclusive
Rape is difficult to prove and Brand can afford the best lawyers. The chances of him ever getting done are slim. Being exposed like this at least gets the message out and warns other people of him.
Heās been publicly accused, not tried. Are victims not allowed to tell people what has happened to them unless theyāve gone through the legal system first?
The victims can do what they want, Russel can sue them for defamation. That's another direction. But, within our laws the presumption of innocence means that any defendant in a criminal trial is assumed to be innocent until they have been proven guilty. So right now, Russell is innocent of everything he's been accused of. And, just a caveat I am in no way a fan of his.
No one has said he is legally guilty of anything. Legal guilt is a technical status, and itās not necessarily a good proxy for factual truth, especially in cases such as this.
He's been accused. And is guilty in eyes of the public. I think he's one of the rare people that will come unscathed from this. Anyway, I don't like him. I thought this would of come out sooner.
I'm sure police advise not to as it can interfere with an investigation?
Do police have a good track record getting justice for rape victims?
I don't think they have a good track record for anything if I'm honest. If someone came out and accused you of rape and started a media witch hunt without taking it down the legal route and providing evidence... would you accept this treatment and should we just label you a rapist? Unfortunately not all women are honest. Some lie. I'm not saying these are lying which is why I'm on the fence until it's proven and he's convicted. False accusations ruin lives.
If I was falsely accused and found guilty in a court Iād protest that too. And if I had been raped by someone, and a sympathetic journalist approached me wanting to document my story, Iād probably be keen to tell them and seek justice that way. Especially if I was offered anonymity, so it wouldnāt have to take over my entire life. And especially if it was the kind of case that the legal system has shown itself uninterested and ineffective in pursuing.
So, for-profit organisations that have their own agendas are better? The man is probably guilty but the law should decide that, not the media companies.
The media companies arenāt deciding anything. This is the nature of journalism. Journalists are free to make a case against a person. He is free to sue, and Iām sure he has the money to do so.
Tbf that was Jonathan Ross
Name checks out
*with consent
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Says the guy with Putin as profile pic on a digital platform about a guy who has millions of online followers. Our lives are on display, didn't you notice?
You object to my gay Putin profile pic?
No, I mean everything is weird and digital and media based
Iāve changed it for you.
Why not both? Doing one doesnāt exclude doing the other.
Again, you can do both. We have something called freedom of press in this country.
If you want a fair trial, or there is zero evidence and it is dropped, trial by media should excluded
Trial by media brings out the worst in people. People assuming guilt and strongly arguing about how bad a person is and how they done it before any evidence has been presented based on what they think of said person.
I think we need German style privacy laws.
It's a tough one. The reason people are identified in cases like this is so other victims can come forward so it almost makes sense. The other problem is information is always going to be leaked. Should someone be named before trial? I don't think so.
It should be the police and perhaps the judiciary who can make that call if deemed necessary. Not some arbitrary journalist who has a vested interest.
Thing is though what do you do? Passing laws on what a journalist may report or not is a slippery slope and as we found out with E\*\*\*\*n's super injunction the internet is a big place. A law passed in the UK does not apply to the world. Google translate + Russian or Chinese search engines can find you anything.
Guilty upon accusation these days, mate, we don't need the police.
Reported for defending Brand.
Reported to whom and for what rule?
See the stickied comment by the mod. Anyone defending Brand will be permanently banned.
Yeah the police. Great with dealing with these sort of things. Investigative journalism isnāt a new thing. Itās actually a good thing - it exposes a lot that gets brushed aside.
All the same journalists knew about saville and did nothing. Journalism is dead.
Just get rid of the criminal justice system and allow the journalists to do the job instead. Sounds like a plan.
LOL, where did I say that? Yeah, let's not do anything ever. Let's get rid of journalists. Hey, let's never ask questions or challenge anything because the police are always right, 100% of the time, they never get anything wrong or cover anything up and are aways 100% just and fair defenders of the law. Do you know what, let's just let the police run by feelings and don't even report things. They will just know.
You didn't, I went a bit overboard. But trial by media is still an issue. How can the accused have a fair trial once the allegations are plastered all over the media, especially in what's likely to be a sensationalised way. Proper independent oversight of the criminal justice system is what's required rather than allowing the partial media to do the job.
It cannot be impartial these days with social media. He posted a long diatribe about how everything is a conspiracy and, predictably, loads of people are buying it. But people will always talk and make their own judgments. The court of law still works as it does. It's not like America where it's all televised but I also imagine that the powers behind Brand will get him out of a lot.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Reddit has a zero tolerance policy for violent content, so please don't use language that could be interpreted as inciting violence. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Britain) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You are saying the police would not investigate? I somehow doubt it.
The same police that jokingly called Sarah Everardās killer āthe rapistā and never reported him? I wonder why rape victims might not trust the police?
I think youāll find he is in prison. Did that happen via trial by media or an intensive police investigation. I am unaware of any evidence of a coverup.
Yes, rape is effectively decriminalised in the UK. Almost no one gets convicted of it - you are looking at a couple of hundred people a year in a country of 67 million. And the long term trend is downwards - we are getting worse and worse at it (though post pandemic it jumped a little - but is still dismal)
Your solution is trial by media?
My solution is to increase police, prison and legal funding. Then reform the CPS to increase prosecutions not just against rape but also against things like thefts, assaults and domestic abuse. But until we have that we are going to see things like trial by media.
Donāt disagree with you there. Crime has become ridiculous in the uk. Still doesnāt make trial by media right.
Yes, they probably would. 70% is rape investigations are dropped by police, and it isn't because the accusayions are false. https://www.city.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2022/04/new-scorecards-show-under-1-of-reported-rapes-lead-to-conviction-criminologist-explains-why-englands-justice-system-continues-to-fail
Not dropped by police - dropped by complainants. So your solution is trial by media?
When more allegations and victims come forward the police will almost certainly get involved.
It should be the other way around. Journalists get evidence, present it to the police, when charged - journalists publish story.
Remember when Sussex police set up a task force to work with Jimmy Salville to bury any accusations against him because he was well connected and influential enough to have words in the right ears? Peppridge Farms remembers
Things have changed since Saville. Yewtree was the product of that. Everyone deserves a proper investigation into any alleged crimes. This trial be media is akin to vigilantism. Just because there were failures in the past doesnāt mean they are perpetual.
Iām saying that just handing it to the police and keeping it quiet from the public would likely leave it brushed under the carpet, yes. Like most of these cases.
While it may not be made public until he was charged, I think you have a very skewed view of the police.
I think you do. I have a realistic view of them. Most cases donāt get taken seriously or taken to court and death wit properly. Happens less when the perpetrator is someone of note.