Russell Brand allegations

[RileyG]

DKDC

exactly!

 

[ThatRobGuy]

And the fact that several other women (and colleagues) have come forward about his abusive behavior - sexually, physically, verbally, and emotionally - lends credence to the idea that he's not a nice person.

With regards to the ones in question (that these criminal allegations are stemming from), did they come forward on their own accord? Or was there some kind of coordinated effort to seek people out who would be willing make allegations?

Sounds conspiratorial on the surface, I know...but hear me out.

Some interesting facts that are probably either under the radar or long forgotten...

The media outlets who were operating in tandem on this story... He successfully sued 2 of them in the two years leading up them starting this investigative piece.

Glenn Greenwald (in a recent episode) described the situation as a "full court press" situation where the journalists involved basically went combing through his personal sexual history and cast a wide net in order to find a few people who would be willing to make allegations.

While it's still entirely possible that Brand is guilty, and one guy like Greenwald's statement doesn't prove anything about a concerted media effort (although, Greenwald is a an award winning investigative journalist, one of which being a Pulitzer if memory serves...), it at least calls some things into question.

 

[apogee]

I think with the #metoo movement, more and more allegations are coming out. I simply don't know if he's innocent or not.

Which I think is the purpose point of mounting such a multipronged blitzkrieg attack. If there were just one story that had suddenly 'come to light' then i think it might be believable...it would certainly be worth consideration... but the reality is that literally overnight there have been an entire barrage of unsubstantiated articles with their own subsets of accusations....each of which are impossible to evaluate not least because of their sheer quantity and the bizarre cosmic convergence that has led to them all, without exception, allegedly 'coming to light' within days of each other...

I'd love to know the mathematical probability of such extraordinary serendipity.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I mean, good for you, I guess? But it's hardly a comparable situation, both in dynamic (you acknowledged the male/female aspect, but he was also in his 30s - an 18 year difference is much more significant than an 8 year difference - and already famous at the time) and for the simple fact that you are not her. Discounting her experience just because you had a good relationship with some similar aspects is pretty dismissive.

And the fact that several other women (and colleagues) have come forward about his abusive behavior - sexually, physically, verbally, and emotionally - lends credence to the idea that he's not a nice person.

It wasn't meant to be a brag...it was meant to highlight an example of how something that didn't bother or traumatize me at the time (and doesn't bother or traumatize me now) shouldn't be used years and years later as a way to make cash if a reporter started dangling a check in front of me. (although, her being 30's instead of mid-20's wouldn't have changed my behavior or willingness to participate....but then again, 16 year old males aren't victims to the opposite sex in the same way that 16 year old females are...which we've both already made reference to...there's a size and strength differential that makes females more vulnerable)

Again, not accusing either side of anything here...just pointing out that both incentive structures exist. There's an incentive structure on the part of predators to discredit accusers, and there's a financial incentive that certain people employ to claim they were bothered by something years prior when they actually weren't. The verdict is still out on this one as due process hasn't had time to run its course yet.

My big question would be, why now instead of back when people were getting "taken down" left and right for this kind of stuff? (people far richer, more influential, and more powerful than Russell Brand). They managed to take down Harvey Weinstein (we can all agree he had a lot more stroke in "the Biz" than a quirky British actor), why not go after him then?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

With regards to the ones in question (that these criminal allegations are stemming from), did they come forward on their own accord? Or was there some kind of coordinated effort to seek people out who would be willing make allegations?

Sounds conspiratorial on the surface, I know...but hear me out.

Some interesting facts that are probably either under the radar or long forgotten...

The media outlets who were operating in tandem on this story... He successfully sued 2 of them in the two years leading up them starting this investigative piece.

It may be helpful to read this piece: How The Times and The Sunday Times investigated Russell Brand

Also, the only instances I can find of Russell Brand successfully suing news outlets are when he sued The Sun on Sunday in 2014 for publishing a story about him supposedly cheating on his girlfriend and when he sued the Daily Star in 2007 for publishing (surprise, surprise) rape allegations. I can't find any stories about him suing (successfully or not) the BBC, the Times, the Sunday Times, or Channel 4, which are separate news outlets (and I refer to the Sun and the Daily Star as "news outlets" only very loosely).

Glenn Greenwald (in a recent episode) described the situation as a "full court press" situation where the journalists involved basically went combing through his personal sexual history and cast a wide net in order to find a few people who would be willing to make allegations.

While it's still entirely possible that Brand is guilty, and one guy like Greenwald's statement doesn't prove anything about a concerted media effort (although, Greenwald is a an award winning investigative journalist, one of which being a Pulitzer if memory serves...), it at least calls some things into question.

Glen Greenwald has, unfortunately, lost a lot of his credibility over the past several years. These days, I take any claims that he makes with a very hefty grain of salt. Even if what he's saying is true, he's throwing a bit of spin on there about trying to find a few people willing to make allegations. Is that what they were doing, or were they looking for substantiation for the allegations that they already had?

It wasn't meant to be a brag...it was meant to highlight an example of how something that didn't bother or traumatize me at the time (and doesn't bother or traumatize me now) shouldn't be used years and years later as a way to make cash if a reporter started dangling a check in front of me.

Why the implication that she wasn't bothered or traumatized at the time though? Given the treatment of rape victims throughout human history, it's hardly surprising that they frequently don't come forward in the immediate aftermath.

Again, not accusing either side of anything here...

Yeah, you kind of are. You've made no allusion to the possibility that any of these people were legitimately traumatized.

My big question would be, why now instead of back when people were getting "taken down" left and right for this kind of stuff? (people far richer, more influential, and more powerful than Russell Brand). They managed to take down Harvey Weinstein (we can all agree he had a lot more stroke in "the Biz" than a quirky British actor), why not go after him then?

Apparently they started this investigation in 2019, which is when the whole Weinstein situation was going down (he was arrested in 2018). So, yeah.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Glen Greenwald has, unfortunately, lost a lot of his credibility over the past several years. These days, I take any claims that he makes with a very hefty grain of salt. Even if what he's saying is true, he's throwing a bit of spin on there about trying to find a few people willing to make allegations. Is that what they were doing, or were they looking for substantiation for the allegations that they already had?

Why?

Is it because his journalistic integrity has diminished in any way/shape/form, or is it simply because he started saying thing things his original tribe didn't like? If the standard for credibility is "how much you're willing to unquestionably support the mainstream left", then I don't think that's a fair standard.

Why the implication that she wasn't bothered or traumatized at the time though? Given the treatment of rape victims throughout human history, it's hardly surprising that they frequently don't come forward in the immediate aftermath.

I'm not trying to imply that at all...just pointing out that it's a valid possibility.

I also acknowledged that it's a completely feasible possibility that he's guilty of everything he's being accused of.

Yeah, you kind of are. You've made no allusion to the possibility that any of these people were legitimately traumatized.

I did acknowledge the possibility that he may be guilty.

Apparently they started this investigation in 2019, which is when the whole Weinstein situation was going down (he was arrested in 2018). So, yeah.

Why wait until now to "drop the hammer"? They were willing to take down Louis CK pretty quickly for his infractions (who I would suggest is of similar popularity as Brand). Why did the process take so much longer for Brand?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Why?

Is it because his journalistic integrity has diminished in any way/shape/form,

In a word, yes. I think that his articles, while still generally factual, tend to engage in significant editorializing these days (as I pointed out in my previous post). That's getting off-topic though.

Any source for your claim that two of the investigating news agencies were previously sued by Brand, by the way?

Why wait until now to "drop the hammer"? They were willing to take down Louis CK pretty quickly for his infractions (who I would suggest is of similar popularity as Brand). Why did the process take so much longer for Brand?

Because these are not the same people who went after Louis CK? Because good, investigative journalism takes time? Because they wanted to make extra double mega sure they were right before publishing because of recent defamation cases against the media? Plenty of plausible reasons.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

In a word, yes. I think that his articles, while still generally factual, tend to engage in significant editorializing these days (as I pointed out in my previous post). That's getting off-topic though.

Any source for your claim that two of the investigating news agencies were previously sued by Brand, by the way?

Here's one of them, I recall it being mentioned that there were two, but I'll have to track down the other one (it's getting a little difficult to search for Brands name in the news feeds at the moment without this latest story popping up ...it's possible I misunderstood and what they meant was two of the publications are part of the same company he successfully sued...and not two individual lawsuits)

Russell Brand wins libel damages from 'Sun' newspaper

Russell Brand wins libel damages from 'Sun' newspaper

ew.com

The Sun is owned by the same organization (News UK) that owns The Times and The Sunday Times.

Because these are not the same people who went after Louis CK? Because good, investigative journalism takes time? Because they wanted to make extra double mega sure they were right before publishing because of recent defamation cases against the media? Plenty of plausible reasons.

Per a write up on Reason Magazine:

It's fair, of course, to scrutinize the motivations of the accusers as well: The Sunday Times notes that the women wanted to talk to reporters because of "Brand's newfound prominence as an influencer, with millions of followers on YouTube and other sites."

...not sure what to make of those kinds of motivations.
Paraphrased, that's basically saying...
"This guy did something really bad, but it wasn't worth pursuing anything or making anything of it until he became influential"

If someone did something really bad, it's worth pursuing even if his popularity fizzled out into obscurity, correct?


It'd be like hypothetically saying "Well, Martin Short assaulted me back 1993, but it wasn't until I saw his newfound popularity on "Only Murders in the Building" that I felt compelled to say something"

 

[NBB]

i think is because they want to shut him up, like Alex jones, not that i am a follower/fan of either, but if this was really about injustice against women, there would a court case already, is so easy i think, to slander someone with some allegations, and ruin their career, it should be innocent until proven guilty. I have no idea about that person life, but he was talking about some topics they don't want and gathering a big following.

 

[Pommer]

i think is because they want to shut him up, like Alex jones, not that i am a follower/fan of either, but if this was really about injustice against women, there would a court case already, is so easy i think, to slander someone with some allegations, and ruin their career, it should be innocent until proven guilty. I have no idea about that person life, but he was talking about some topics they don't want and gathering a big following.

I know that I would like to take away the microphone of a person who has done the things alleged.
What’s “wrong” with that?

 

[NBB]

I know that I would like to take away the microphone of a person who has done the things alleged.
What’s “wrong” with that?

Because anyone can make allegations, even with bad intentions of ruining someone, but i don't know if he is guilty or innocent. Innocent until proven guilty it should be.

 

[Pommer]

Because anyone can make allegations, even with bad intentions of ruining someone, but i don't know if he is guilty or innocent. Innocent until proven guilty it should be.

In a court of law, yes; does his employer need to keep him “on”?
No.

 

[NBB]

In a court of law, yes; does his employer need to keep him “on”?
No.

Lets say you are person with some fame, you woudln't want anyone because their are envious or whatever, just accuse you like that, and get your reputation and job ruined, because someone lied.

 

[Pommer]

Lets say you are person with some fame, you woudln't want anyone because their are envious or whatever, just accuse you like that, and get your reputation and job ruined, because someone lied.

That’s the nature of the beast though, flying high in April, shot down in May.

 

[dzheremi]

And I would submit that because that is the nature of things, caring about celebrities one way or another is the least purposeful way of being engaged in the world. For sure it matters to the accusers and to Brand and his management and anyone currently contracted to work with him how this all shakes out, since they've got real stuff invested in all this (money, reputations, a sense of justice for wrongdoings suffered, etc.). It is much less clear why it should matter to any of us here on Christian Forums in particular.

 

[Pommer]

And I would submit that because that is the nature of things, caring about celebrities one way or another is the least purposeful way of being engaged in the world. For sure it matters to the accusers and to Brand and his management and anyone currently contracted to work with him how this all shakes out, since they've got real stuff invested in all this (money, reputations, a sense of justice for wrongdoings suffered, etc.). It is much less clear why it should matter to any of us here on Christian Forums in particular.

They say that Fatty Arbuckle got railroaded too, about 97 years ago.

 

[mindlight]

Problematic speculative post, DELETED

 

[Nithavela]

I know that I would like to take away the microphone of a person who has done the things alleged.

Would you like to take the microphone away form a person who hasn't done those things, but who was alledged to have done those things regardless?

 

[Goonie]

I do not know if Brand is innocent of the allegations or not but was intrigued by the comment about the timing of the media frenzy on this. Brand has been more vocal about the significance of God in his life recently and how his spirituality has given more perspective on the whole stardom addiction. In an interview just six months ago this trend was made clearer. Given his traction with the younger population and the desire of many in the media to deChristianize the Western world, I wonder if there is a connection here. So the moment he stands up as a voice for truth in a murky world his own murky past is used to bring him down. Or they just used a situation that was impossible for him to decisively debunk to sully him enough to make that voice sound weaker.

Your reading to much into it. Since Covid he has gone full tilt into Alec Jones conspiracy BS. As it saw his youtube channels views jump from. The 100,000 to the millions.

 

[mindlight]

Your reading to much into it. Since Covid he has gone full tilt into Alec Jones conspiracy BS. As it saw his youtube channels views jump from. The 100,000 to the millions.

You might well be right here. I do not really know the guy but now that I have read more it looks like you said. He portrays himself as just asking questions but clearly panders to fake news as a way of putting himself into the heart of the limelight and painting himself as a sort of rebel icon persecuted by the establishment. But Alec Jones (moon landing denial, COVID-19 denial, 911 etc) is a step way too far for me. He is being defended by people who I do not really trust to tell the truth. In that sense, he is probably eroding trust in more reliable truth sources while making a stack of money doing so. Sounds like a technique that works though - I mean look at Trump.